1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "B. Judgment" in Part 5 of Part 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance and "B. Judgment" in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "B. Judgment on the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the Claim for the plaintiff

In the end of paragraph 2, the judgment of 200 additional judgment

C.2) In addition to the addition of each addition to the end of paragraph (2), it is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 【Additional Judgment 1】 The Plaintiff asserts to the purport that the said transfer contract should be revoked as a defective declaration of intent, which is erroneous in the part on the essential elements of the contents of the legal act or the motive of the legal act, as it entered into the said transfer contract without being aware of the possibility of obstructing or suspending the instant dental business due to the removal of the building at the time it entered

The testimony of the witness I of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not aware that the removal of the building of this case was hindered or likely to interfere with the dental business of this case at the time of the transfer contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the statement No. 1 and the purport of the testimony and pleading by the witness of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff is the case.