1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 70,00,000 and KRW 30,000 among them, from December 19, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained from the Defendant the right to operate a restaurant at the Hyundai Construction D D D D (hereinafter “instant restaurant operation right”); (b) transferred KRW 224,00,000 to the Defendant on December 16, 2014; and (c) transferred KRW 70,000,000,000 to the Defendant on December 19, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”). (b)

After that, the on-site restaurant transfer contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as of December 29, 2014, stating that “In transferring the right to operate the instant restaurant to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 100,000,000 of the premium 224,000,000,000 on December 15, 2014 and the remainder shall be paid on the date on which the restaurant construction commences. When the contract is unilaterally reversed to the transferor, the transferor shall pay to the assignee an amount equivalent to 20% of the down payment and the interest equivalent to 2% per month.”

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant violated the obligation under the instant acquisition agreement and transferred the instant restaurant operation right to a third party twice, and the third party currently operates the instant restaurant.

On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,00 to the account under the name of the Defendant.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination on the ground of restitution due to the rescission of the transfer agreement and the plaintiff's claim for damages, the transfer obligation of the defendant under the transfer agreement of the instant restaurant operation right was omitted due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, so the transfer obligation of the defendant under the transfer contract of the instant restaurant operation right becomes impossible due to the reasons attributable to the defendant. Thus, the transfer contract of the instant transfer order, which was delivered to the defendant on March 3, 2016 by the original copy of the payment order, stating the plaintiff

Therefore, the defendant was already paid to the plaintiff to restore the original state following the cancellation of the acquisition agreement of this case.