1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased restaurant facilities, the name of the Defendant and Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, B102 and B103 (hereinafter “instant store”); (b) KRW 54,00,000,000,000,000 for the premium; (c) upon expiration of the lease term, the Defendant demanded the name of the instant store, he/she entered into a contract for the acquisition and transfer of facilities (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff cannot claim the said facility expenses if he/she voluntarily requests the name of the instant store. (d) By April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the said premium to the Defendant by April 18, 2015.

B. On April 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the instant store with the term of KRW 50 million, the term of the lease from April 20, 2015 to April 19, 2017, and the term of the lease from April 20, 2015 to April 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). After paying the said lease deposit, the Plaintiff operated a ties restaurant by receiving delivery of the instant store from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 and Eul evidence 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the plaintiff's assertion is that the monthly sales of the store of this case in collusion with E that the defendant arranged for the lease of the store of this case at least KRW 30 million, monthly profit is at least KRW 10 million, and that it is not necessary to repair after completing the facilities such as central intensive cooling system, kitchen facilities, and sewage pipes, etc., and entered into the acquisition agreement and lease agreement of this case by deceiving the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion of the above contract with the acquisition agreement of this case by deceiving the plaintiff that it is not necessary to repair after completing the facilities, such as central air cooling system, kitchen facilities, and sewage pipes, the above contract was cancelled by delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case and the return of the above lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million and KRW 54 million,000

The statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 alone are insufficient to recognize the defendant's deception alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.