1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts under the basis of facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), together with the whole purport of the pleadings.

On November 3, 2010, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the building of a tourist accommodation facility (C hotel; hereinafter “instant hotel”) of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul 8th floor above ground (hereinafter “instant hotel”) and did not directly operate the instant hotel, but leased the instant hotel to Red Korea Co., Ltd., Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty E in sequence.

B. Around October 2013, the Plaintiff, Nonparty F, the husband of the Plaintiff, and Nonparty G agreed that the Plaintiff and F leased the instant hotel and that they entrusted the instant operation to G.

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff and F entered into a contract for the lease of the instant hotel from the Defendant as the broker of H employees of E Co., Ltd., a lessee of the instant hotel (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) by setting the lease period of the instant hotel from the Defendant as two years from November 1, 2013, deposit of KRW 1 billion, monthly rent of KRW 48 billion (excluding value-added tax), and KRW 1.5 million per month for management expenses (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

Since then, the Plaintiff and F entrusted G with the operation of the instant hotel, and G operated the instant hotel from November 2013 to the end of the instant lease.

C. On the other hand, the hotel of this case was a non-class hotel without a rating examination, and was judged as Grade 3 of the hotel on March 24, 2016, after the termination of the lease of this case.

2. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement by the Plaintiff, Nonparty I, an employee of H and the Defendant, told F and G to the effect that the instant hotel was a second-class hotel in tourism, and that facilities were similar to the first-class hotel in tourism to the facility, thus 4 on the hotel 1st hotel.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff believed that the instant hotel is a Class 2 hotel in tourism and that it is the above.