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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment on this case citing the reasoning of the judgment on this case sees “each evidence or circumstances” of 10-11, 9, 10-11, 9, 9, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

2. The Plaintiff’s burden of the instant joint and several liability is due to the fact that he heard from D that KRW 200 million was deposited as development costs of 25 parcels of land, such as the instant forest land, etc., and misleads the Plaintiff and C that it would be attributed to the interest of the Plaintiff and C. If the Plaintiff knew that the said KRW 200 million was personal debt, etc. against D’s Defendant, he did not bear the instant joint and several liability. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the expression of intent to bear the instant joint and several liability liability is revoked on the ground of mistake or deception.

In a case where there is an error in the motive for the expression of intent, the expression of intent becomes an error only when the parties have taken the motive for the expression of intent into account as the content of the expression of intent, and if an error in the contents of such expression of intent is related to an important part to the extent that it would have been judged that the general public would not have made the said expression of intent, the voter may cancel the said expression of intent.

In this case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was found to have failed to make mistake as alleged by the Plaintiff at the time when the Plaintiff was liable for the joint and several liability obligations of this case, and the Plaintiff was erroneous as the content of declaration of intention

It is not sufficient to recognize that D had caused mistake by deceiving the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff is legitimate.