1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2011, the instant forest was divided into 47,365 square meters of forest land B (43,502 square meters after the division) owned by the Plaintiff, respectively. On the same day, the Defendant (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs: the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), on June 1, 201, the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of an agreement on the acquisition

B. The forest land of this case is currently in preparation for military operations, such as a portrait, a dust, and a guard.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2-1 through 3, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5-1 to 8, each of the images and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, around 2004, when he transferred the forest land owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a public site, the part was incorporated into the road. Furthermore, when he received a request for consultation on the land acquisition of the forest land of this case from the “original Regional Land Management Office” managing the road, the Plaintiff responded to the acquisition of consultation with the knowledge that it was incorporated into the road at once.

However, the defendant has installed military installations in the forest of this case, and the plaintiff was unable to hear sufficient explanation from the defendant in advance and responded to the acquisition through consultation.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall revoke his/her intention of transfer to the defendant on the ground of mistake in important parts of the juristic act.

3. In order for the Plaintiff to have a mistake in declaration of intention as stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Act, the recognition and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact at the time of engaging in a juristic act should be deemed to be cases where the Plaintiff’s perception and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact that there was no fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da202922, Nov. 28, 2013). Furthermore, the Plaintiff followed an agreement acquisition by deeming that the instant forest will be incorporated into a road in the future, and subsequently, the instant forest was not incorporated into a road, but rather established military installations.