2. After an appeal is filed.

A. On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million with respect to the first floor of a building located in Busan, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2016, and the monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the interior construction in the instant commercial building and commenced restaurant business in the instant commercial building under the name of “F” on January 21, 2014. However, on January 23, 2014, the latter two days, from the Busan District Office, the competent authority, the Busan District Office, “the parking lot part in front of the instant commercial building (the front of delivery from the entrance and exit; hereinafter “the instant parking lot part”); hereinafter “the entire commercial building” in combination with the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff was ordered to restore the original commercial building to its original state.

C. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff removed facilities installed on the instant parking lot in accordance with the aforementioned restoration order, and thereafter failed to use the instant parking lot part as the place of business.

On the other hand, the Defendant sold the entire building including the instant commercial building to E on May 4, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 4, 2015, and thereafter the Plaintiff completed the business in the instant commercial building and transferred the instant commercial building to E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, part of the witness G of the trial court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages caused by the tort was unable to use the instant parking lot as the place of business, he did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.