The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On September 6, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 400,000,000 with respect to three parcels, including the 3,678 square meters of forest C, Si-si, Si-si, Si-si, in which the Defendant owns (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant.

However, a sales contract stating the purchase price of KRW 90,000,000 was prepared.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff prepared a so-called contract according to the defendant's demand, and as the plaintiff demanded to prepare a so-called contract with the purchase price of KRW 400,000,000, the contract of this case was unilaterally demanded to change the sale price of KRW 400,000, and the contract of this case was reversed. The defendant is obligated to pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff as a penalty for breach of contract (However, the defendant is obligated to pay 40,000,000 won to the plaintiff as a penalty (the plaintiff's claim). 2) The first defendant presented the purchase price of KRW 600,000,000 on condition that the transfer income tax should be reduced to KRW 400,00,00,000 on condition that the contract was prepared, and the plaintiff did not have any obligation to cancel the contract of this case under mutual agreement, and thus the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the status of the plaintiff to the new third party.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the Defendant unilaterally demanded a change in the purchase price of KRW 400,000 per square year and this case’s sales contract was rescinded, and there is no evidence to find otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff is the purchaser of the instant sales contract due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances.