1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract of KRW 145,00,000 for the purchase price with respect to the Gandong-gun D (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff as a broker of Licensed Real Estate Agent C.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 as the down payment on the day of the contract, and the remainder was paid on August 21, 2013.

C. On August 6, 2013, at the above licensed real estate agent office, the Defendant presented a boundary restoration surveying performance map (Duplicates and evidence No. 4) on the instant land, and expressed his/her intent to cancel or cancel the said sales contract where the Defendant did not reduce the sales price on the ground that the survey of the instant land is merely 957m2,00 square meters on the ground that the area was smaller than 1,263m2, which is the area registered in the public account, and that the said area was smaller than 1,263m2

The actual area of the instant land is 957 square meters.

In response to the Defendant’s request for reduction of the above purchase price, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the purchase price of KRW 35,000,000 ( KRW 145,000,000 x 306/1,263) from KRW 145,000 to KRW 146 square meters, and agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 95,00,000 to KRW 110,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant reduction agreement”), Gap evidence 6. E.

On August 6, 2013, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff any balance of KRW 95,00,000 according to the instant reduction agreement, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land under the name of the Defendant on the day.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, appraisal of the area of the land in this case by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff, under the premise that the actual area of the instant land is the same as that entered in the public register, and thus, the Defendant would have reached an agreement on reduction of the instant land by deeming it as 957 square meters, shall be deemed to be “a deception by the Defendant” and “a mistake induced by the Defendant.”