The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the wide sense of property transaction. It does not necessarily require to be related to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient if it is about the basis of a judgment for allowing an actor to conduct a disposal of property that the other party wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction situation, the other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12218, Oct. 27, 2011). In addition, in order to establish fraud, there should be a successive causal relationship between deception and another party’s mistake and the granting of property or property gains, but even if there is negligence on the part of the defrauded in the cause of mistake, fraud is established even in cases where there is negligence on the part of the defrauded

(2) As to the land use consent of this case, G prepared a written consent to the land use consent of this case to the Defendant after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and the Defendant and D did not prepare a written consent to the land use of this case, the court below decided that G prepared a written consent to the land use of this case and consistently stated that it did not delegate the sale of the land of this case to the Defendant in advance, and that G demanded the land survey expenses of this case later to D.

amount of cost of eight million won or more from D.