1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff C) who was brought at the trial of the trial.

[This lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to be a principal lawsuit and counterclaim]

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim identical to the purport of the claim against the Defendants as the principal lawsuit, and Defendant B filed a claim against the Defendants for unjust enrichment of KRW 8,55,000 as a counterclaim.

The court of first instance dismissed all the plaintiff's claims and partly accepted defendant B's counterclaims.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff filed an appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against which the plaintiff is dissatisfied, i.e., the whole claim of the principal lawsuit, ii) the part against the plaintiff among the counterclaim claim of defendant B, and iii) the counterclaim claim of defendant C.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The parties' assertion

A. Before the Plaintiff’s husband D had concluded the instant lease agreement, the Defendants were to conduct a general game providing business (so-called “sexual entertainment room”) at the instant store. Therefore, this case’s building should not be considered to fall under a residential area, and the Defendants were well aware.

Therefore, by inserting Articles 3 and 8 of the special agreement, the contract will be invalidated if the permission is not obtained.

However, as a result of confirmation with the competent authority after the conclusion of the contract, it was found that part of the building of this case was unable to conduct a general game providing business through a residential area, so the lease contract of this case became null and void pursuant to Article 8 of the above special agreement.

Even if not, the Plaintiff intended to enter into the instant lease agreement to operate the adult amusement room, and thus constitutes an expression of intent by mistake, and thus becomes null and void by cancelling the agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants should jointly return the down payment of KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff.