1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the building of five-story C on the ground (hereinafter “instant cartel”) owned by the Defendant is to be leased for KRW 300 million and two years for the lease period (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant as security deposit.

B. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the monthly sales at the time of the instant lease agreement amounting to KRW 24 million to KRW 25 million, which was erroneous information, and thus, the Plaintiff revoked the said lease agreement. As such, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content that “The Defendant would return the deposit already paid to KRW 30 million.”

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment following the cancellation of the lease agreement is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant, at the time of the instant lease agreement, deceiving the Plaintiff that the monthly sales of the instant telecom amounted to KRW 24 million from KRW 25 million to KRW 25 million, and thus, the Plaintiff concluded the lease agreement by deceiving the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of KRW 30 million, which was already terminated and paid upon termination of the lease agreement on this ground. 2) In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff by the above method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Each of the above evidences contains a record of the Defendant’s mother who actually operated the instant Moel, “The sales amount is from 2,400 to 2,500” on the Plaintiff’s side, or is merely merely merely a record of the Plaintiff’s sales report for a specific period of the Moel.

In other words, the above evidence alone notifies the defendant's above actions to the extent of being criticized in light of the duty of good faith as to the important matters of transaction.