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

A. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for the transfer and acquisition of the business entity (hereinafter “instant contract”) that purchased “E” (hereinafter “E”), a food wholesale and retail business business establishment operated in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, a food wholesale and retail business establishment (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) for KRW 55,00,000 in the purchase price.

B. The above sales amount was determined at KRW 34,151,146 as inventory materials of the instant business establishment; the outstanding amount was calculated at KRW 15,363,950 as sales; KRW 4,000 as building deposits; and KRW 700,00 as monthly rent.

C. The Plaintiff paid to Defendant B KRW 45,000,000, and KRW 10,000 on January 29, 2016, respectively, on the date of entering into the instant contract.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As a result of the Plaintiff’s confirmation after the instant contract entered into, the value of the food materials in the instant workplace is over KRW 3,000,000 and the outstanding sales amount was also false.

Although Defendant B was 17 or more business partners in the instant workplace, there were 5 to 6 actual transactions, and two of them could not make profits due to their lack of profits.

Defendant B guaranteed the interest rate of 20% at the time of Mart supply, and 30% at the time of the supply of a restaurant, but the actual amount was limited to 5% and 12%.

As above, Defendant B entered into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff on the value of food materials in stock, sales outstanding amounts, business customers, etc., and on this ground, the Plaintiff seeks the payment of the sales price that was paid after cancelling the instant contract and claiming the return of unjust enrichment.

B. Each statement and image of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 12 alone are insufficient to recognize that defendant Eul had deceiving the plaintiff as to the value of food materials, sales amount, sales amount, transaction amount, etc. in the workplace of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above deception was made is based on