1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2014, the Plaintiff, without any premium, received 35 million won from the Plaintiff for a lease deposit for a private teaching institute building in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was operated by the Defendant from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”), and entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer and acquisition of the instant private teaching institute with the content that the Plaintiff accepts the building, fixtures, and 24 private teaching institute students from the Defendant as they are and operates the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of private teaching institute”).

B. According to the instant contract for the transfer of a private teaching institute, on November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a lessor of the building of the instant private teaching institute, including a lease deposit of KRW 35 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and the period from November 27, 2014 to November 26, 2015. Among the instructors of existing private teaching institutes, the Plaintiff placed an advertisement for job placement of instructors on the Internet on November 30, 2014 to take the place of an instructor who did not wish to renew with the Plaintiff. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the establishment and operation of a private teaching institute under the name of the Plaintiff, and completed the business registration on the same day.

C. After acquiring the instant private teaching institute, the Plaintiff requested the payment of retirement allowances from the existing instructors who retired from the private teaching institute. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff paid retirement allowances of KRW 4 million to E (Korean language subject) and KRW 8.2 million to F (Korean language subject) on April 20, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of a private teaching institute of this case with the statement that “the Plaintiff did not know about the Plaintiff’s retirement allowances because of the Plaintiff’s absence of retirement allowances” from the Defendant several times. However, even if not, there was a mistake that the Plaintiff did not have gross negligence on the part of the contract, so the Plaintiff’s service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case constitutes fraud or mistake.