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 for this part of the judgment of the court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the facts are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, except for the addition of the following claims, the reasoning of this part is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The plaintiff asserts the following preliminaryly.

The Plaintiff’s eligibility as a householder on May 28, 2019, lost its membership, and the instant subscription agreement constitutes a standardized contract. The time of refund prescribed in Article 12(4) of the instant subscription agreement falls under an important element that may affect the conclusion of a contract by social norms, and thus, is subject to the duty to explain and explain under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”), but the Defendant did not explain it and did not include the content of the instant subscription agreement in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

Therefore, on the day following the notification that the Plaintiff lost its membership to the Defendant, the due date arrives, and the remainder after deducting the down payment and the agency expenses shall be refunded. However, the amount of damages to be deducted due to the Defendant’s fault should be limited to the agency expenses, taking into account the circumstances where additional contributions were incurred.

Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining KRW 52,40,000,000 after deducting the agency expenses from the contributions that the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff, and the damages for delay.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. In order to establish liability for damages by deception of land acquisition ratio, there was a intentional deception by one of the parties to the transaction, which caused the other party to the transaction, and there was no such deception.