1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The fact of recognition: (a) entered into a lease agreement with C on December 27, 2017, setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million for the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on the part of KRW 43 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) under subparagraph of the D Building E owned by the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the deposit amount of KRW 15 million on the same day; and (b) the fact that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, which is part of the contract deposit amount of KRW 15 million, to the Defendant on the same day, does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the defendant's agent C could operate a public book room although he could not teach all subjects in the real estate of this case, and ② C did not deceiving the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff expressed his intention to lease the instant real estate to operate the Defendant’s agent C as a public book teaching all subjects when concluding the instant lease agreement, but it is impossible to operate the instant real estate as an official book teaching all subjects from the instant real estate. Therefore, there is an error in the important part of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, it is argued that the lease contract of this case is cancelled on the grounds of deception or mistake, and the deposit amount already paid is returned to five million won.

B. Based on the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court: (a) acquitted the Plaintiff that C could operate a public book room on the instant real estate.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff made mistake as being able to operate a public book room in the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract (i.e., the voice of the USB recording file). (ii) On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff was able to teach the subject in the telephone conversation with the Defendant on December 26, 2017, and the address of the Plaintiff was not the permission for the public book room in the instant real estate.