1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the following terms: “A contract with the Defendant to purchase down payment of KRW 45 million in total amount of KRW 4.5 million in remainder and KRW 5 million in total amount of KRW 462 million in the amount of KRW 5,7 million in the amount of KRW 5,000,000,000,0000,000 KRW 1,359 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, and KRW 49 square meters in the JJ, and KRW 1,79 square meters in the aggregate (hereinafter “instant contract”).”

(2) The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 45 million on the date of the instant contract.

B. As indicated in the attached Form No. 1, the Daegu-Gun L culvert owned by the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the instant ditch”) is located adjacent to the instant land, and the FF 513mm2 (hereinafter “second real estate”) located adjacent to the instant ditch is located in the Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, M (spouse G)-gun, 513m2 (hereinafter “second real estate”).

C. At present, vehicles shall use the block paths already installed in order to access to the real estate No. 1 of this case (hereinafter “instant passage”). Most of the instant passage passage are installed on real estate No. 2, and the entrance of the instant passage is installed on the second real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1 through 11 (if there is a satisfy number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) images, Eul evidence 2 through 4, witness G of the trial court, testimony of the witness G of the trial court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 No. 1 is located in the second real estate owned by M, the Defendant’s husband H, at the time of the instant contract, deceiving the Plaintiff by stating that “it is possible for anyone to use the instant traffic route to enter the land first, but it is possible to use the instant traffic route because it is a ditch.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff revoked the contract of this case on the ground of fraud by serving the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and reinstates the original state from the plaintiff.