beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant of the first instance court's 4th portion of the second instance court's 4th portion of the second instance court's 21th portion of the defendant's 4th portion of the second instance court's 21th judgment engaged in deception as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the defendant is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant engaged in deception as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the new argument made by the plaintiff in the first instance court is stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's 420th portion of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. At the time of the conclusion of a sales contract, the Plaintiff asserts that, while issuing a cadastral map (as evidence No. 13, No. 13, No. 13, and No. 1) to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as if it were not “,” but “,” by deceiving the Plaintiff as if it were “,” and thus, the Plaintiff purchased the said land due to mistake or fraud.
B. Therefore, examining the above cadastral map as a whole, the reason why the land in this case appears to be divided is because the boundary between the contract management area and the preservation management area is indicated. Even if based on the written statement (Evidence A 9) prepared by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s wife, explained that the land flows out at the time of entering into the instant sales contract. Even according to the witness E of the first instance trial, even according to the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial, the Defendant sold the land in shape at the time because the land in this case belongs to the land in this case, and the purchaser of the land is ordinarily to check the status of removing the cadastral map and confirming the status of the cadastral map. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the Defendant deceptioned the topography of the land in this case cannot be accepted.
C. In addition, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's wife have entered into the instant sales contract at least two times.