1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer all of the laundry machines (hereinafter “instant laundry machines”) and fixtures, etc. located in the instant laundry (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013 while running laundry business in Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant laundry”) and prepared a contract (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the content that sets forth the transfer proceeds in KRW 28 million (the contract amount and balance, etc. are not distinguished; the time for payment is not specified).

B. On December 28, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200,000 to the Defendant as the down payment of the instant transfer contract. On the same day immediately following the transfer contract, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a text message stating that the instant transfer contract only covers all of the instant washing machines and equipment, such as the instant washing machines and equipment, and that the goodwill, premium, etc. is not subject to it, and the Plaintiff immediately confirmed it.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2 million to the Defendant on January 4, 2014, and KRW 24 million on January 15, 2014 as the transfer price under the instant transfer contract. D.

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant transfer contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and on April 17, 2014, the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the declaration of intent to cancel was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was obligated to transfer the right to laundry business without any defects to the plaintiff pursuant to the transfer contract of this case, but the transfer of the business right was impossible because it was closed prior to the transfer contract of this case, and did not provide the plaintiff with the information database even though it was intended to provide the plaintiff with it.