1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (including the Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the principal lawsuit out of the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts cited in paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The volume of garment shall consist of three parallels of five to six parallels of six parallels as follows:

“B) The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there is an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and the transaction which has lost balance as a subjectively, was made by using the brush, rash, or inexperience of the victimized Party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38927 delivered on October 22, 2002). However, in light of the following facts and the circumstances inferred therefrom, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 7, 8, 21, and 22 in the evidence Nos. 7, 8, 21, and 22 in the evidence Nos. 7 through 10, 17, and 18 in the form of old-age, rashion, or bad experience at the time when the contract of this case was concluded by Defendant B.

In addition, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the content that the Plaintiff significantly lost balance by taking advantage of such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the contract.

① Defendant B is a company established on October 7, 2008 for the purpose of housing construction business, real estate-related development and service business, etc., and has experience in executing apartment construction business at the original city of the original city.

② On December 15, 2008, Defendant B purchased 1,849 square meters and 12 lots, which are adjacent to the instant land, from L, in total, KRW 26.5 billion. Defendant B entered into a real estate consulting service contract with J around July 2008, setting the service cost at KRW 1.2 billion, and upon which such contract was concluded, Defendant B paid 1.2 billion to J.

③ In addition, in addition to the conclusion of the instant contract with the Plaintiff, Defendant B entered into a real estate consulting service contract with J for the purchase of the instant land, and between F and Defendant B as to the instant land.