1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an on-site restaurant contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the purport that the Defendant would transfer to the Plaintiff the right to operate the cafeteria (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) located in the vicinity of the construction site of an apartment constructed in Gyeyang-si (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) in the amount of KRW 100 million.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s payment of the above KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and subsequently closed the business of operating the instant restaurant until December 2015, the time when the said apartment was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, at the time of the instant contract, told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would sell at least one billion won at the time of operating the instant restaurant, and that the on-site workers would help the Plaintiff use the instant restaurant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant and operated the instant restaurant, but incurred approximately KRW 200 million loss. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 100 million and its delay damages due to tort damages. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages. 2) Therefore, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the testimony of the Plaintiff and the witness D’s testimony alone, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, was deceiving the Defendant at the time of the instant contract, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to nonperformance was concluded under the condition that the Defendant would help the on-site workers in the vicinity of the instant restaurant exclusively use the instant restaurant, and the Defendant did not properly implement the contract after the contract of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.