1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant has engaged in food service business under the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “D”) on the first floor of a building located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “D”).

On December 11, 2014, the competent administrative authority issued a corrective order on the ground that the Defendant had installed an automatic reflector at a general restaurant, and on March 3, 2015, each disposition issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant administrative disposition”) on the ground that the general restaurant had the customer provide entertainment by singing.

B. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a business transfer and takeover agreement (hereinafter “instant transfer and takeover agreement”) with the Defendant to take over the instant store from the Defendant, and paid KRW 700,000,000 on the same day as the down payment out of KRW 70,000,000 for the premium and KRW 69,30,000 for the remainder on June 24, 2015.

C. In addition, on June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between E, etc., which was a lessor of the instant shop, from June 25, 2015 to June 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) At the time of entering into the instant transfer and acquisition contract claiming revocation of fraud, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff that the instant administrative disposition was taken place, and the instant transfer and acquisition contract was made by deceiving the Plaintiff as if the instant transfer and acquisition contract could be run by using the automatic reflector device in accordance with the method of operating the instant store up to the time. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the instant transfer and acquisition contract on the ground of the Defendant’s deception and return of KRW 70 million for the premium already paid. 2) The Plaintiff claiming revocation of mistake was concluded with the intention to continue to operate the instant store in the form of danran, and such type of business is no longer possible.