1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial to purchase D in the East Sea (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 75,000,000 with the Defendant.

B. On the date of the contract, the Plaintiff and C agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on August 16, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 50 million on September 20, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant as the down payment on August 8, 2016, and KRW 10 million as the intermediate payment on August 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was purchased by the defendant's wife E, and Eul had Eul enter into a sales contract by showing other land that is not the land of this case, thereby deceiving the plaintiff. Since the defendant knew or was negligent because he knew of his wife's act, the conclusion of the sales contract of this case constitutes an expression of intent by fraud.

In addition, since the land that the plaintiff intended to purchase is land E and there is an error in the boundary of land because it is not land of this case, the conclusion of the sales contract of this case constitutes an expression of intent by mistake.

Therefore, the plaintiff is revoked on the ground that the contract of this case was made by fraud or mistake.

Since the Defendant returned only five million won out of the purchase price already paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, if it constitutes an expression of intent by fraud, it was caused by the Defendant’s unlawful deception, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 15 million and penalty of KRW 10 million as compensation for damages. In the event of an expression of intent by mistake, the Defendant is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes fraud does not constitute “E” in this case.