1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2007, the Defendant: (a) leased part of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Ground Building from C for a period of one year from the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); and (b) operates the frequency of “E” with the trade name “E” (hereinafter “instant frequency”).

The instant lease agreement has been implicitly renewed every year.

The instant lease agreement contains a special clause stating that “in the event of the construction of a new building, surrender and surrender without any condition” (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”).

B. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff, upon the introduction of F, transferred the frequency of the instant house from the Defendant to the Defendant for KRW 200 million for the premium (hereinafter “instant contract”) and the down payment amount of KRW 20 million on the day, to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul's No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the existence of the instant special agreement at the time of the instant contract, and rather stated to the effect that there is no problem in continuing to operate the instant frequency.

The Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s horse and concluded the instant contract, and paid KRW 20 million as the down payment.

However, according to the contents of the instant special agreement, the existence of the instant special agreement constitutes an important matter in the right acquisition agreement, such as the instant contract, as the Plaintiff may be at issue to continue operating the collection of the instant frequency.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff, which constitutes an implied deception.

Therefore, the Plaintiff revoked the instant contract and sought the return of KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

② In addition, when the contract of this case is concluded, both the original and the Defendant agree to reinstate the contract without penalty if they intend to suspend the progress of the contract in the middle.