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

A. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff was planning to operate the game room by leasing the second floor of the building B in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”). On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s cultural and sports division and asked the public official C in charge and the instant store about whether permission to operate the game room is possible.

At this time, C provided the plaintiff with an explanation that the store's use can be permitted if the store's use is a neighborhood living facility by guiding the game room business permission procedure.

B. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was preparing for the opening of a game room by entering into a lease contract for the instant store under the name of his/her spouse D, and asked again whether the Defendant’s cultural and sports and public officials in charge of the instant store could be permitted to operate the game room at the instant store by visiting again the Defendant’s cultural and sports and public officials in charge and C on May 12, 2014.

C At this time, in the case of general game providing business, it is impossible to grant permission in a residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that (i) the Plaintiff: (a) sought the answer that it is possible to grant permission from a public official C in charge on February 18, 2014; and (b) trusted the answer that it is possible to grant permission; and (c) paid a total of KRW 47.6 million (i.e., KRW 10 million for lease deposit of KRW 10 million for KRW 80 million for a game term of KRW 10 million for a down payment of KRW 20 million for facilities in the previous party room); (b) made a preparation for opening a new business; and (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff sustained considerable loss incurred by the Plaintiff due to the negligence of the public official in charge of the Plaintiff.

B. On February 18, 2014, the defendant, when the plaintiff first consulted on February 18, 2014, shall be the building ledger concerning the store of this case.