1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff, upon introduction of B, etc., purchased 3371/1920 shares of 3371/1920 (hereinafter “instant forest shares”) from the Defendant, who engages in real estate sales business, in KRW 22,990,800, out of 1920 square meters of 1920 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant forest land”). The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to pay the remainder 19,490,800 won on the date of the contract, the remainder 19,490,000 won on the following day, and paid the purchase price to the Defendant as stipulated in the contract.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The forest of this case is adjacent to the second line road, and is designated as a natural green area among urban areas in accordance with the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and is designated as a quasi-preserved mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, each entry and video of Gap1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s claim for revocation based on the Defendant’s fraud and its determination (1) are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff purchased the shares of the instant forest by deceiving the Defendant’s employees D, E, and F, a planning real estate business entity, that “The instant forest is an investment promising area that is being developed immediately, and the land value is at least three times within three to five years.” Since the instant forest is quasi-contincing mountainous district with a gradient as a quasi-contincing mountainous district, and it is difficult to develop the land value as it is impossible to develop. Therefore, the instant sales contract is revoked by fraud, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to return the instant forest purchase price of KRW 22,90,80 to the Plaintiff.

(2) In a case where a false notice is made on important matters of transaction in the advertisement of the product in a manner that would be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, it constitutes a deception. However, it is somewhat exaggeration in the advertisement.