1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. As to this case, this court's reasoning is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court attached the judgment of the plaintiff's additional assertion in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the event that the Plaintiff is unable to implement the agreement at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the Defendant agreed to modify the agreement in this case, taking into account such circumstances, and written only the content favorable to the Defendant without reflecting such content in preparing the notarial deed, and thus, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed prepared differently from the actual content of the agreement cannot be allowed. (2) At the time of the conclusion of the agreement in this case, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the possibility that the Plaintiff could not perform the agreement in this case, and the Defendant consented to modify the later agreement

In the event that the defendant's consent to the above amendment of the agreement is believed and the plaintiff is unable to perform his/her obligation under the agreement of this case, it would be able to modify the agreement through consultation with the defendant, and as such, the agreement of this case was concluded by mistake of motive induced from the defendant, and thus the agreement was revoked.

B. 1) As to the assertion that the instant notarial deed was prepared differently from the actual agreement, No. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The reasoning of the evidence No. 1 reveals that the Defendant’s failure to perform the agreement at the time of entering into the instant agreement is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to modify the agreement of this case by reflecting such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to support the allegation on the ground of mistake. (2) On the ground that the mistake of motive falls under the error of an important part of the content of the legal act, on the ground that the mistake of motive constitutes an error