1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① The part of the judgment of this court citing the 4th to 20th of the same page from the 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance.

As stated in paragraph (2), the defendant's additional arguments are as follows.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment (if the court adds the circumstances and the evidence presented by the Defendant, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if they are added to the evidence presented by the Defendant), they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420

In addition to the above facts, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the purport of Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 7, and the entire purport of arguments, are identified as follows: (i) the defendant was aware of the transfer of real estate in Kakakao Kakao Kao messages sent to the plaintiff on October 23, 2018; (ii) it was found that there was no strong mechanism for trade; (iii) it is difficult to receive KRW 1.4 billion due to there was no strong transaction.

It is required to talk again, i.e.

In light of the circumstances described in the “instant agreement,” the Defendant is deemed to have recognized the fact that the market price of the instant real estate could not exceed 1.4 billion won through the real estate brokerage office prior to October 28, 2018, established on or before the conclusion of the instant agreement, and ② In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not specifically mention the market price of the instant real estate in the Kakakao Stockholm message sent and received at the time of the instant agreement on October 28, 2018, the Defendant appears to have agreed on the instant agreement by taking into account various circumstances, other than the market price of the instant real estate, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone included the circumstance that the market price of the instant real estate is 1.4 billion won as the premise or content of the instant agreement.

or the defendant of this case.