1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the “125,000,000 square meters (437 square meters) prior to the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun C” (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant and pay the remainder to the Defendant by August 10, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

(other than 435 square meters, additional amounts were paid in proportion to the amount.

The reason why the plaintiff purchased the land of this case was to build a house later and to build a farming house.

C. The instant land includes part of the packaging roads used for the passage of the general public.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail stating the cancellation or cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground of deception, and reached the Defendant around that time.

E. On the other hand, the Defendant, around August 11, 2016, did not pay any balance after the remainder payment date, and thus, the down payment was confiscated, and the instant sales contract was revoked or revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Of the instant land which is the cause of the claim, the area occupied by the road is approximately 40 square meters, and the area that can not be cut off due to the said road is also equivalent to 40 square meters. Such circumstances are important factors to determine whether to enter into a sales contract and the sales price. As the Defendant did not notify the contract, and concluded the instant sales contract by considering that the instant land is adjacent to the road without knowledge by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s mistake was caused by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s mistake was caused by mistake.