1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are pharmacists.

On August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the facilities and business rights of the “D Pharmacy” that the Defendant operated in the building located in Seo-gu, Busan and Seo-gu, in KRW 470,00,000.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 47,00,000 on the day of the contract, and KRW 100,000,000 out of the remainder payment was paid on September 8, 2015, and KRW 100,000 on September 27, 2015, respectively, on September 30, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings] (The defendant has lost standing to sue by transferring the facilities and business rights of the pharmacy after the conclusion of the above contract to the opposite party. However, the plaintiff's standing to sue in the lawsuit for performance is determined as the plaintiff's claim itself, and therefore the defendant's above defense has no merit)

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The above building was scheduled to be demolished in the housing redevelopment improvement project zone.

The Defendant should have notified the Plaintiff of such fact under the principle of good faith. At the time of concluding the contract, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of this fact, which led to deceiving the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall cancel the above contract by declaring intention by fraud through the service of the complaint.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 350,000,000 as business compensation for the above pharmacy.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 120,000,000 won remaining after deducting the above business compensation of KRW 350,000,000 from the above business compensation due to restitution following the cancellation of the contract, and the legal delay damages as stated in the purport of the claim therefor.

B. At the time of the contract, the Plaintiff did not know that the above building was scheduled to be removed in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone, and later transferred his pharmacy business rights to a pharmacy again and caused the Plaintiff to collect the premium.

This is the motive mistake, and the plaintiff and the defendant expressed their intent at the time of the contract.