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. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) are sufficient as a result of the determination of issues in accordance with the methods and principles of the appellate court hearing, laws, precedents, legal principles, and evidence rules.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, except for further determination on the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the reasons for appeal, and therefore, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the reasons for appeal. As such, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary under the main sentence of

2. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) The first instance court’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s motive error in the sales contract of this case was correct in its determination that the Plaintiff’s motive mistake in the sales contract of this case was based on the expectation that the business type that could expect a long-term rental profit immediately after purchasing the commercial building of this case was believed to have been located in the sales contract of this case, and thus, the first instance court’s belief that each lease contract was concluded with tegratory motor vehicle or op ranger was the motive of the Plaintiff itself.

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance is not based on the specific fact that the plaintiff is to enter into a lease contract with Mean Motor Vehicle, but appears to have entered into the sales contract of this case for the purpose of generating profit from the conclusion of the lease contract. Ultimately, the risk of profit-making after entering into the sales contract shall be borne by the buyer, who is the buyer.

In addition, the plaintiff did not indicate or state the motive so argued as above in the contract for sale in this case as the content of the contract for sale in this case.