1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the assignment of claims with the Defendant to purchase the secured claim of the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amounting to KRW 60 million) of KRW 35 million (hereinafter “instant contract on the assignment of claims”) set up on the 595 square meters (the public wound area is 595 square meters, but the actual area is 170 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Ansan-si, with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract on the assignment of claims”).

B. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full amount of the transfer price of KRW 35 million on the date of the instant assignment of claims, and was transferred by the Defendant on April 20, 2012 on the following day.

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

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into the instant transfer contract on the premise that the area of the instant land is 595 square meters, which is the area registered in the public register, but the actual area of the instant land is only 170 square meters. Although the Defendant was well aware that the actual area of the instant land is only 170 square meters, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff enter into the instant transfer contract by deceiving the Plaintiff that the area of the instant land is 595 square meters, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to enter into the instant transfer contract. As such, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant transfer contract on the ground of the Defendant’s deception and sought a return of KRW 35 million paid to the Defendant. In domestic affairs, at the time the Defendant entered into the instant transfer contract, the Defendant was aware that

Even if there is an error in the important part of the transfer contract of this case, the service of a copy of the complaint of this case asserts that the cancellation of the transfer contract of this case and the return of the transfer proceeds is sought, since the difference between the registered area and the actual area exceeds 3 times.

B. (1) Determination is made on the allegation of revocation due to fraud.