1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 2015, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) entered into a lease agreement with D, setting the lease term as from November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2017, with respect to the first underground floor of the building located in Jongno-gu Seoul E (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) owned by D, with the term of lease from November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2017. On November 19, 2015, Defendant C is a company that entered into a lease agreement with the term of lease for the first floor of the same building on the same ground from November 19, 2015 to November 18, 2017, and operates a restaurant “F” with the trade name “F” at that place. Defendant C is the father of the representative director of the Defendant Company G.

B. On September 1, 2016, around September 1, 2016, a lease contract for the lessor and the lessee as the Plaintiff (from September 30, 2016 to September 30, 2021) was created for the first floor of the instant building.

On the other hand, the business takeover for the first floor of the instant building was paid in KRW 15 million to the Defendant company from the Plaintiff’s account as premium in accordance with the Plaintiff’s contract.

C. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s East H sent to G representative director G a content-certified mail that revokes the business takeover agreement on the grounds of deception of monthly sales, etc. and non-performance of the contract. D.

G delivered to H on October 21, 2016 the intention to return the premium to H by telephone, and H made a reply to the effect that H would communicate with the attorney-at-law while proceeding with the legal procedure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement and a takeover of business on the first floor of the instant building through Defendant C, the president of the Defendant Company.

However, although the instant building was designated as a violating building under Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act on August 2, 2016, Defendant C and the Defendant Company.