1. The defendant shall pay 29,853,700 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a hotel supply contract (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant to provide C hotel Nos. 10A Dong 1110 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Gangnam-si B (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the authenticity of the instant supply contract is not recognized since the signature on the essential part of the personal information written consent and the confirmation part on the fulfillment of the duty to explain the terms and conditions was forged among the instant supply contract, but as long as the Plaintiff has signed on the cover of the instant supply contract, the authenticity of the instant supply contract is recognized).

B. Under the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000,000 to the Defendant on November 13, 2016, and KRW 24,853,70 on November 14, 2016, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant supply contract was concluded by deceiving the Plaintiff due to (i) act and omission, and (ii) it was revoked, or (iii) it was concluded in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”) and the Personal Information Protection Act, by forcing the Plaintiff to enter into a prudent contract, or forging the instant private document and forging it.

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant supply contract is null and void under each of the above grounds, but the grounds for cancellation are revoked, and the grounds for invalidation are null and void). The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 29,853,700 (=5,000,000) paid to the Plaintiff as restitution (= KRW 24,853,70,00).

B. First of all, we examine the allegation that the instant supply contract was concluded in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and thus null and void.

Where an entrepreneur enters into a contract with a customer by using terms and conditions, the terms and conditions shall be specified.