A. The Defendant leased the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C store and operated the Chinese restaurant (hereinafter “instant store”) with the trade name “D” at the place.

B. On January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition and transfer of a right (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to take over the entire business rights and facilities with respect to the instant store and to pay KRW 40,000,000,000 for the proceeds of business takeover. The details are as shown in the attached Form.

On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a commercial building lease agreement with the owner of the instant store, and paid KRW 30,000,000 as the lease deposit. By January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000 as the price for business takeover under the instant contract.

C. The sales of the instant store consisting of ① Posting sales (on sales) and ② Posing of sales by delivery agency (including sales through F’s “E” and telephone delivery). On November 28, 2018, prior to the instant contract, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with data related to the sales and cost adjustment table (Evidence No. 4, No. 2, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1) that excessively stated the sales, cost, cost, net profit, etc. on August 28, 2018, which is the date of the instant contract, and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with data related to the sales and cost adjustment table (Evidence No. 4, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1). On November 30, 2018, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with an accelerator file that re-established the sales, cost, and net profit, etc. on August 30, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

However, among the sales revenue of delivery agencies as indicated in the instant X-cell file, the “F” portion overlaps with the portion of the sales revenue of delivery agencies, and thus, the sales revenue and net profit were excessively recorded, and “F” is deemed to be the sales revenue of the portion of the instant accelerator delivery from August 2, 2018 to 11.