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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if the statement of evidence No. 9 submitted to this court was presented to this court.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is to correct "31 square meters" in the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "2,63 square meters", and "a confession was made" in the 8th part of the 7th part of the 8th part of the 7th part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "a confession was made, and a judgment was rendered guilty on the above facts charged by the above court on May 21, 2018," and except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiff in this court, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. (i) The plaintiff's assertion on the assertion of expression representation under Article 125 of the Civil Code (hereinafter "the plaintiff's assertion") stated that the plaintiff granted the right of representation on the sales contract of this case to E by giving the certificate of the personal seal impression or the certificate of the personal seal impression for the purpose of use, which is "for sale and purchase", to E, as well as by telephone conversations with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant should perform its obligations under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of express representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, we examine whether the Defendant indicated to the Plaintiff that the right to representation regarding the instant sales contract was granted to the Plaintiff through telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, and the witness D of the first instance trial, which seems to correspond thereto, cannot be trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Next, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant.