1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. A.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 80,000,000 won and 80,000 won.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire “E” (hereinafter “E”) that the Defendant leased and operated from C as the acquisition price of KRW 135 million (a contract deposit of KRW 20 million shall be KRW 20 million on March 8, 2012; and a balance of KRW 115 million shall be KRW 15 million on April 30, 2012).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on March 8, 2012, but failed to pay the remainder on April 30, 2012.

B. On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay to the Defendant KRW 60 million until May 20, 2012, and KRW 40 million until May 26, 2012, and KRW 35 million until August 30, 2012, respectively, for acquisition price, when concluding a new contract under which the said underwriting contract and the subject matter are identical (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million in total to the Defendant, including the down payment of KRW 20 million paid on March 8, 2012 as the purchase price for the instant store, including the down payment of KRW 20 million paid on July 9, 2012, KRW 7 million on July 10, 2012, KRW 3 million on July 10, 2012, and KRW 10 million on July 25, 2012.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received the instant store from the Defendant on May 15, 2012 pursuant to the instant contract, and occupied and operated the instant store until December 2012, and suspended its operation and left the door of the said store alone.

E. On February 2013, the Plaintiff handed over the instant store to the lessor C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 5 to 8, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. 1) With respect to the cancellation of the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) as at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant exaggerated the number of business partners or contract parties of the instant store; or (b) as at the lessor’s consent to the transfer of the right of lease.