1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff to sell KRW 1,984 square meters of land B (hereinafter “instant land”) for KRW 942,400 of the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On June 28, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) on the instant land on the grounds of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s horse that the instant land constitutes a current state road, and sold 2,479 square meters and 397 square meters of C forest land to the Defendant in relation to the instant land and neighboring Samg-do. In fact, the current state of the instant land is not a road but a forest.

Ultimately, since the instant land is erroneously indicated as the subject matter of sale even if it is not the subject matter of sale, it should be deemed that the instant sales contract failed to exist due to the lack of agreement with the intention on the subject matter of sale.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership that was completed in the future of the defendant with respect to the land in this case is null and void without any cause. Therefore, the transfer of ownership in this case should be cancelled.

B. 1) Determination 1) In order to establish a contract, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the terms and conditions of the contract. The agreement is not required for all matters that form the content of the contract, and there is sufficient agreement between the parties on the essential matters or important matters specifically and at least on the standards and methods that may specify them in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). Generally, disposal documents are duly accepted as authentic.