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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In selling the subject matter of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff that the right to collateral security was established on the entire land of this case, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant without knowledge.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s service of a preparatory document as of January 13, 2016, is revoked on the ground that the said contract is an expression of intent by fraud, and seeks the return of the purchase price to the Defendant

B. The records of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, and Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 3 are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff entered into the contract due to the failure of the defendant to notify the whole land of this case including the subject matter of the instant trade to the effect that the right to collateral security was established between the defendant at the time of entering into the contract of this case with the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the fact that the Plaintiff, as the managing director of the Defendant, joined on July 21, 2014 and promoted the sale business of the entire land of this case, is as seen earlier, and according to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the evidence No. 19-1 to 5, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff acquired ownership as to the entire land of this case on July 28, 2014, and established the right to collateral security, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, the obligor, the Defendant, Q&W, and R, on the same day. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, who was employed as the executive officers of the Defendant before the entire purchase of the above land, was well aware of the fact that the right to collateral security

Therefore, it is true.