The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant for KRW 82,350,000,000,000 as the down payment on the same day, and entered into a sales contract to pay the remainder 6,2350,000 won on July 17, 2015.

At the time, the Defendant conducted a survey on the current status of the instant real estate at his own expense, and transferred the entire cemetery located on the instant real estate to the remainder date, but the clan cemetery is unconditional. If another cemetery, other than a clan cemetery, is not removed, the Defendant would be paid the remainder after deducting three million won per cemetery from the purchase price instead of the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership as it is, in the event that another cemetery, other than a clan cemetery, is not removed.

B. After the survey conducted around July 2015, the Defendant concluded that only some of the instant real estate shares should be transferred on the ground that the area of the instant real estate increased than that set forth in the sales contract, and that the grave cannot be removed within three months from the date of the sales contract.

On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the balance under the instant sales contract, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on July 23, 2015 against the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the instant sales contract and the payment of money for breach of the special terms and conditions stipulated in the instant sales contract.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the sales contract of this case was null and void as an unfair legal act.

C. On September 16, 2015, the first instance court concluded the pleading after proceeding on the date of first pleading on October 21, 2015, the date of second pleading on November 21, 2015, and the date of third pleading on November 18, 2015, and following the first instance court’s ruling on January 20, 2016, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient to have a significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration, and the Plaintiff was in the use of the Defendant’s influorial, rash, orless experience.