임대차보증금 등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant contract”) KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 250,000, and KRW 250,000 from September 24, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to operate the Pian Teaching School; and (b) concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the house cost of the Pian Teaching School for KRW 4,50,000,00 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 1,00,000 on the day of the instant contract, KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 4,500,000, and KRW 250,000, respectively, for the remainder lease deposit of KRW 2,000,000 on September 24, 2015.
C. From September 30, 2015 pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff operated the “Epio Teaching school” in the instant commercial building. From the commencement of the operation of the Epio teaching school, the Plaintiff caused the occurrence of conflicts with G operating the Fpio teaching school in the vicinity of the instant commercial building located in the second commercial building located in the said commercial building and Epio noise.
On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Defendant, despite being aware that it was impossible for the Defendant to normally operate a Pianno teaching school due to the occurrence of noise complaints, he/she had the Plaintiff, who was the lessee, and entered into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff, which was the lessee, to invalidate the instant contract, and return the deposit money and the cost of the house-backed goods already paid, and compensate for losses caused by deception.”
[Ground of recognition] A’s evidence 11, A’s evidence 15, A’s evidence 19, A’s evidence 21, witness G’s testimony and purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is the Plaintiff’s assertion from time to time that G who operates a FD Teaching School in the vicinity of the instant commercial building had a sensitive response to noise.