1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on acquisition of the right to sell D (hereinafter “instant contract”) in the form of KRW 20,000,000 for deposit money, KRW 25,000,000 for premium, and KRW 25,000,000 for premium, from the Defendant on March 18, 2015, and paid KRW 25,000 for premium to the Defendant.

B. From April 2015, the Plaintiff operated the instant store, and filed a report on the closure of business on March 21, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint against the Defendant, but on August 28, 2015, the Sung-nam Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the charge of having been suspected of having been sentenced to suspicion (defluence of evidence).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s annual average sales of KRW 36 million (average rate of KRW 25% per month) based on the sales data prepared by the Defendant confirmed and entered into the instant contract, but the instant contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception, such as having a big difference in actual sales, thereby making the instant contract concluded by the Defendant, thereby obtaining the premium by fraud. In fact, the Plaintiff’s report on discontinuance of business on March 21, 2016 was made.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million including the premium of KRW 25 million and the losses during the operating period, and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s business start-up report states that sales amounting to KRW 24 million, monthly estimated income amounting to KRW 6.5 million, and the average sales amounting to KRW 36.5 million in 2014 were stated as KRW 36.5 million, but the amount of net income was corrected to KRW 30 million after the mistake was verified. Accordingly, the amount of net income is at least KRW 6.45 million.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 5, it is recognized that the sales of the store of this case in 2014 includes 3,6560,000 won and delivery sheet sales.

However, each number of evidence, evidence, and evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8 mentioned above.