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

A. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff decided to acquire the facilities of the “E” game room located in Seosan-si, the Defendant operated from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). B.

According to the “business and mutual transfer contract” made between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time, the defendant transferred to the plaintiff the facilities, the whole period, and the goodwill and the right of lease including the 40 unit of the ice Game, “F” established in the above game room (hereinafter “the instant game machine”), and the defendant paid a total of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff in three installments.

C. In this regard, on October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff entrusted C of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office with the preparation of a notarial deed of contract for repayment (quasi-loan for consumption) in order to secure the payment of KRW 30 million out of the above acquisition price as of December 29, 2017, which was set as of December 29, 2017, to C of the Daejeon Public Prosecutor’s Office. On the same day, the Plaintiff was issued a notarial deed that immediately accepted compulsory execution with the notarial deed No. 214 prepared by a notary public in 2017 (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 70 million, excluding the above KRW 30 million, and began the game room business from November 7, 2017.

E. However, on November 2017, the Plaintiff suspended the instant game room business on the grounds that the instant game machine could be subject to regulation because it was illegally opened or altered differently from the original rating.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment as to the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim.

In other words, the defendant illegally opened and altered the game of this case to operate the game of this case and transferred it to the plaintiff who is aware of the above illegal opening and alteration. The transfer contract of this case is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act as a juristic act contrary to social order.