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. Basic facts

A. On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor and the second floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, to C, and C was prepared to operate the restaurant by installing a signboard indicating the trade name “E” (hereinafter “instant signboard”) in the instant commercial building.

B. After October 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with C to jointly operate a restaurant in the instant commercial building.

C. However, on November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with the Defendant, who is the husband of C, to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall take over the instant commercial facilities (all the goods, such as the housework, kitchen supplies, signboards, and interior works) on the condition that the Plaintiff alters the trade name, and shall pay KRW 25 million for the acquisition cost by January 30, 2016, and pay the wages of the employees (F and G) as of November 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant.

On the other hand, on November 14, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) completed business registration with the trade name of “H”; (b) closed the restaurant on January 19, 2016; and (c) newly installed a signboard of the said restaurant at the expense of KRW 2.5 million in the opening of the business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Gap evidence 14, the purport of the whole video and pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would take over all the facilities installed in the instant commercial building from the Defendant’s side, and paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant. The Defendant removed the instant signboard without permission. As such, the Plaintiff had no choice but to install a new signboard at the cost of KRW 2.5 million.

Thus, the defendant without any legal ground derives a benefit equivalent to the cost of installing the signboard, and incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.