1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 200/179 of the sales price of KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant’s net forest 59,405 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) located in the natural green area from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The Plaintiff paid the full payment of the sales price to the Defendant around that time.

The above D Forest land was divided into five parcels around March 7, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s share was changed into 7192/1700 of C Forest land of 16,529 square meters.

[Grounds for recognition] The defendant asserted that Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion that "if the forest of this case is purchased in KRW 2,30,000 per square year, it would be able to receive KRW 500,000 per square year since the forest of this case would be developed within one year," and the plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case. Thus, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked due to the plaintiff's mistake caused by the defendant's deception or the defendant's mistake.

Judgment

In order to revoke the declaration of intention on the ground of fraud in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Code, there is a intentional deception between one of the parties to the transaction, which is caused by mistake, and it is recognized that if there was no such deception, the other party would have not made the declaration of intention.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase and sale of real estate, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase and sale of real estate, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da29337, Oct. 23, 1992). In light of the above legal principles, the health care unit, each entry of evidence Nos. 5 through 9, testimony of witnesses E at the trial, and the results of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser F.