beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a D cafeteria located in the window C of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”).
(2) Around December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a right acquisition agreement with the Defendant on KRW 75,000,000 for the instant restaurant, and the terms and conditions of the previous lease agreement (deposit 10,000,000) between the Defendant and the lessor were to be succeeded as it is by the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, on December 1, 2016, the date of the contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10,000,000,000 on December 1, 2016, and on December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 65,00,000,000 in total, including the premium of KRW 55,00,000,000 and the lease deposit of KRW 10,000 on February 10, 2017.
3) On December 13, 2016 according to the above acquisition of the right, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant after completing business reports and business registration on December 13, 2016. After that, the Plaintiff first heard that the instant restaurant was unlawfully remodeled from his office food sanitation and public officials, and subsequently, around September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a corrective order (Evidence A6) as follows on the ground that the area of the business site was not modified (the expansion of the area without permission for the business place). In addition, even in the construction division of his office, the Plaintiff was ordered to remove the instant restaurant on the ground that the instant restaurant building constitutes a building violating the Building Act and the Parking Lot Act (Evidence A74). However, the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the instant restaurant was a non-violation building at the time of concluding the above acquisition of right with the Defendant.
At the time, the defendant did not mention the fact that it was a violation building to the plaintiff.
5. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant restaurant was a non-compliant building.