1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase all of the rights, including the lease relationship, and the facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with respect to the Dcafeteria located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”). On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 76,000,000 in total, on August 30, 2012, when concluding the contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the purport that the E Co., Ltd. (former FFF Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) located in the immediate adjacent to the instant restaurant will separately operate the cafeteria, and thereby ensuring 200 persons among the Plaintiff who use the cafeteria. Since the instant contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake on the important portion of the cafeteria, the Plaintiff revoked the instant contract and sought a refund of the purchase price equivalent to the purchase price paid to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant did not know at all that the non-party company would operate the restaurant, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the number of users of the restaurant was 200 persons prior to the payment of the remainder, and the decrease in the number of users of the restaurant was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the restaurant. Thus, there was no deception or mistake under the contract of this case.

In addition, even though the plaintiff is obligated to verify the surrounding circumstances of the restaurant of this case before the contract of this case, it is negligent in doing so and there is gross negligence.

Therefore, the contract of this case cannot be cancelled on the ground of mistake.

3. Determination

A. The mistake of an important part of the legal principle concerning the cause of the claim in the judgment of the 1-related legal act is common to the extent that the arbitr would not have made such an expression of intent if he had not made such a mistake.