1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 331/40 of the purchase price of KRW 33,124,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) out of KRW 4,090 square meters of the Gangwon-gu Special Metropolitan City forest C (hereinafter referred to as “instant forest”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said purchase shares on May 27, 2014 after the payment of the purchase price in full.

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

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) stated that D, E, F, and G, who is an executive or employee of the Defendant, would be a father if the Plaintiff purchased the instant forest by stating to the effect that “I will reform the monetary system to revitalize the underground economy. I will assist the Government in the development of peace and finance as the top priority in administrative and financial aspects for the Pyeongtaek Winter Winter Olympic Games. At present, I would be KRW 10 million in the face of land, and will be KRW 100 million in the end.”

The Plaintiff purchased shares in the forest land of this case in approximately 33 times even though the market price of the forest land of this case is only KRW 993,000.

(2) ① The Defendant, as a Korean national from China, was engaged in a heavy interest by taking advantage of the Plaintiff and H’s rashness and inexperience, etc., and thus, the instant sales contract is null and void as an unfair legal act.

② Even if the instant sales contract is not null and void, the instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception, and the Plaintiff was revoked pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the sales price received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was that the Defendant concluded a contract under which the Defendant had a significant loss of fairness using the Plaintiff’s rashness or experience.

The plaintiff, or the plaintiff, was accused of the defendant's officers and employees, or caused a mistake by this.