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

A. From around 2007, the Defendant operated the Smarket (hereinafter “Smarket”) with the trade name “D” on the first floor of the building located in Jung-si, the first floor of the government city.

B. On January 2013, the Defendant set the Mat in the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office at KRW 100,000,000,000,00 won of floor premium (the premium for pure business without inventory of facilities or office).

C. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined KRW 100 million as the premium, and concluded the instant contract for the acquisition or transfer of the right (facilities) to the instant Schlage (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid all KRW 100 million to the Defendant under the instant contract.

At that time, the Plaintiff received the delivery of the instant Schlage and operated the Smarket by changing its trade name to the FTS, and at the time of the closure of the pleadings of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant, who was an employee of the Smarket, did not know that G, who was an employee of the Smarket, intended to start his business in the Smarket, did not notify the Plaintiff of his intention to start his business at a place 15 meters away from that of the instant case.

Therefore, the contract of this case should be cancelled by the declaration of intention by deception, and the defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 100 million already paid to the plaintiff.

B. According to the findings of the fact-finding on the witness I, G’s testimony, and the fact-finding on the KT of this court, G, who was an employee of the instant Schlage, opened Hmaart with L and Dong business, operating the restaurant called “K” in the instant building at the time of the KJ on September 4, 2014. The F convenience in the operation of the Plaintiff and Hmaart sold items are almost the same as Y, fruits, beverages, beverages, industrial products, and bread, and the Defendant used in the instant Schlage on July 14, 2014. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2548, Jul. 14, 2014>