1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from June 16, 2016 to December 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C and operated the E “E” (hereinafter “instant store”) on the first floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D1 from February 2009.

B. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a facility premium contract for the instant store (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the instant store, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 30 million on the day of the contract, and KRW 40 million on June 15, 2016.

C. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant and C entered into a lease agreement with a lease deposit of KRW 20 million and monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million.

By June 15, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff out of the down payment under the instant contract. On the 30th of the same month, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, and received delivery of the instant store, but did not pay the remainder.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to pay the premium, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million unpaid premium under the instant contract and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment of the remainder payment of the premium to the Defendant from June 16, 2016, which was served on the Defendant from June 16, 2016 to December 22, 2016.

B. (1) The defendant's argument on the defendant's argument (1) although the plaintiff could not receive the premium due to the termination of the lease agreement with C, C gave the above premium of KRW 70 million and takes over the coffee shop. Thus, the defendant entices the defendant to pay the above premium to the plaintiff in order to take over the coffee shop, and the defendant concluded the contract of this case with the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff.