1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to the part in which the first instance judgment is followed or added, the 6th page 16 of the 6th sentence of the first instance court, and the following, the phrase “as there is a change from F to the Plaintiff by the number of half of the trade area.”

On the sixth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase " must be seen," and then the phrase " shall not interfere with the above recognition only with the entries of evidence A 1, 22, 27, 28" shall be added.

No. 8 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court is regarded as “in the event of failure” as “violation of the Defendants’ duty of disclosure.”

The following shall be added to the 10th sentence of the first instance court on the 14th sentence:

Whether Defendant B bears the warranty liability or not, the Plaintiff asserts that the land of this case constitutes a defect in the land and that Defendant B did not know it to the Plaintiff, and thus, there is a warranty liability.

As seen earlier, Defendant B and the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that “the instant land shall be delivered at the present state with a low price set by Saturdays on February 10, 2010,” and that the state of the land can be reflected in the sale and purchase by selling it at a lower price than the market price. The Plaintiff was able to confirm or easily confirm the state of the land, and the Plaintiff did not peep into the circumstances that Defendant B attempted to conceal this, it is difficult to view that the instant land at the market price was insufficient to have an objective nature and performance expected in light of the transaction norms, or that it was difficult to deem that the land at the market price was a defect lacking in the nature to be planned or guaranteed by the parties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just.