1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who operated the health club (hereinafter "the instant health club") with the trade name "D" in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was registered as the market for the building under the Building Act, and the alteration of the purpose of its use is virtually impossible, as if the alteration of the purpose of use is possible, entered into a false statement with the plaintiff as if it is possible to change the purpose of use, and the plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of the health club of this case on May 7, 2010 between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is obligated to deliver 40,000,000 won for the same day as the down payment and 40,635,000 won for the same day under the above transfer contract, 18,400,000 won for June 25, 200, 2000 won for the remaining 30,000 won for the plaintiff's total damages, 300,5000,0000 won.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense was well-known that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact at the time of acquiring the instant health club, and even if not known, the Plaintiff did not know the fact.

Even if he/she fulfilled his/her ordinary duty of care, he/she was negligent by failing to grasp the problems of the instant health club even though he/she could have known of the problems, and thereby expanding the damages. Thus, even if liability for damages arising from the Defendant’s tort is recognized, the Plaintiff’s negligence should be reflected. The Plaintiff’s operating profit of the instant health club for about one year and six months (4 million won x 18 months) and the environmental charges, taxes, and monthly rents to be borne by the Plaintiff during the foregoing period.