1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From August 2013, the Defendant, along with his spouse C, engaged in the restaurant business in the name of “E restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”)” in the D Building (First floor E-30) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”).

B. On March 2016, the Defendant published in the rice Luxembourg market an advertisement “1 99 square meters of one story in one cafeteria in one cafeteria in one cafeteria, clean facilities from among the lux business, and at least 1200-15 million square meters of net profit in 1500:30,000.”

C. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the said advertisement and confirmed the business status of the instant restaurant, and entered into a lease agreement with the owner G of the instant commercial building to provide for KRW 30,000,000 as to the instant commercial building, monthly rent of KRW 1,50,000, and the period from July 8, 2016 to July 8, 2018. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over KRW 39,00,000 for the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant contract”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 or Gap's evidence 5, and purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that monthly sales of the instant restaurant amounting to KRW 12,00,000 to KRW 13,000,000,000, the Defendant advertised that monthly net profits amount to KRW 12,000 to KRW 15,00,000,00, while deceiving the Defendant that he could not operate the instant restaurant with outside of the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff could not operate the business with outside of the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with the Defendant and paid KRW 39,00,000 for the premium to the Defendant.

The plaintiff cancels the contract of this case on the ground of the expression of intention by fraud. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 19,00,000 won, subtracting the amount of KRW 20,000,000 for the premium received by the plaintiff from the above premium of KRW 39,00,00 for the premium of this case from the premium of KRW 39,00 for the premium of this case.

B. We examine the judgment, and the defendant's net profits on the restaurant of this case are 12,00,000-15,000.