1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The court's explanation of this case is as follows with respect to the second preliminary claim added by the plaintiff in this court. Each "preliminary claim" in the second and fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed into "the first preliminary claim", and therefore, it is identical with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "the first preliminary claim" is changed into "the first preliminary claim". Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the second preliminary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is located in the area where the instant real estate is located as a development-restricted zone, and the owner has the right to transfer, and even though the adequate purchase price of the instant real estate was KRW 60 million through KRW 80 million, taking into account the right to transfer and purchase, the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract by setting the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 20 million using the Plaintiff’s old-path, rash, and experience. The instant sales contract constitutes an unfair juristic act and thus null and void.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case shall be cancelled by the registration of invalidation.

B. The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and a transaction which has lost balance as a subjectively, was conducted using the brush, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized Party. Even if the victimized Party was in a state of brush, rash, or inexperience, the injured Party was aware of the circumstances on the part of the victimized Party, and there was no intention to use such act, i.e.,, a bad faith,

In a case where there is no significant imbalance between payment and consideration, or where there is no objective benefit and consideration, an unfair legal act is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1460, Oct. 11, 1996). In the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to examine the instant case, and the Defendant’s pathy, rash, and rash.