1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9-1, and 9-2; and (c) the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial; or (d) the purport of the entire pleadings.

Defendant B (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant B) is a company that conducts real estate development business, and Defendant C is a real manager of Defendant B.

B. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B on KRW 60,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 300,000,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) out of 20,49,000,000 in Yongcheon-si D Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 10, 201, the Plaintiff paid the said purchase price to Defendant B in full, and the Plaintiff did not file for ownership transfer registration on the instant land.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Plaintiff asserted unfair legal act and the determination thereof. The Defendants sold the instant land at KRW 60,483 per 1 square meter per 1 square meter, which is approximately nine times the said purchase price, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was unaware of the aforementioned circumstances due to gresh, bad experience, and rash, and the Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract constitutes a juristic act, the fairness of which is considerably lost, and thus, is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act.

However, solely on the fact that the sale price against the plaintiff constitutes about nine times the purchase price, it cannot be readily concluded that the sales contract of this case is a juristic act that has considerably lost fairness. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was in a state of old-age, rashness, experience, etc. at the time of the sales contract of this case, and that the defendants knew of such circumstances and used it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion to revoke the declaration of intent by fraud and the determination thereof, the Plaintiff’s land located in another location against the Plaintiff.