1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with respect to KRW 340/6479 square meters of 6479 square meters of the 6479 square meters of the Gyeongbuk-gun D Forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”) and paid the said sales price to C around that time.

B. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Daegu District Court received the grain registry office for the instant forest land under Article 15567.

C. The Defendant was appointed as the representative director of C on July 24, 2014.

On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with Busan District Court 2014Kadan93039, which sought the refund of the purchase price in this case. On April 2, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “C shall pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff by May 31, 2015,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive as is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, entry of Eul evidence 8, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that as the representative director of C, a planning real estate company, the Defendant, as the representative director of C, the employees of the planning real estate company, would have the Plaintiff increase at least three times the land value within three to five years. The Plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case from C in approximately twenty-three times the officially announced land value, thereby purchasing KRW 27,440,00,000, around twenty-three times the officially announced land value.

Since the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and C is an expression of intent due to mistake or fraud, the Plaintiff is revoked pursuant to Articles 109(1) through 110(1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, the instant sales contract constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act and thus null and void.

On the other hand, C is a company established formally for the purpose of evading obligations under the total responsibility of the Defendant, and the Defendant, the representative director of C, is the Plaintiff.