1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. The proceeds of the transfer of basic facts: The intermediate payment to be paid at the time of a contract of KRW 15,000,000: The remainder payment to be paid by November 10, 2016 shall be replaced by the security deposit (services). The special terms of payment made by November 20, 2016 - the current security deposit of service amount of KRW 65,00,000,000 shall be liable for the seller.

- The lease shall be for a new period of 5 years.

- Establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis is deemed required.

A. On October 30, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with Nonparty G to transfer the right to operate “D Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) under the underground of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Sari”), which is located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The main content of the contract is as follows, and received KRW 15,000,000 from G deposit on the same day.

B. Around November 2016, the Plaintiff received the status of the assignee under the instant transfer contract from G, and the Defendant consented to the said change of the assignee.

C. After doing so, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000, which is part of the intermediate payment, to the Defendant, in addition to the down payment of KRW 15,000,000, which G paid to the Defendant, and paid KRW 65,00,000 to the instant private letter service provider.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The primary argument of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant transferred the instant private house facilities and the right of lease to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant transfer contract, and obtained the consent of the lessor regarding the transfer of the private house or the right of lease. However, the Defendant was unable to operate the instant private house because it was unable to perform its duty to obtain the consent of the lessor.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written answer on March 21, 2017, stating that the instant transfer contract will be rescinded on the grounds of the delayed performance due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. As such, the instant transfer contract is legitimate on March 22, 2017, which was served on the Defendant.