1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the claim: (a) upon the brokerage of D employees of C company C company D, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 10 million for premium (2 million on the day of the contract, KRW 2 million on January 28, 2013, KRW 3 million on February 28, 2013, KRW 3 million on February 28, 2013, KRW 3 million on March 28, 2013, KRW 3 million on March 28, 2013, from the Defendant.

(2) At the time of the contract for the transfer of the right, the Defendant, at the time of the contract for the transfer of the right, deceiving the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) at the time of the contract for the transfer of the right, the Defendant: (b) had the actual number of originals, which is 26, but is 38; and (c) had the net profit of KRW 200-3 million per month even though the profit and loss was hostile.

After the instant contract for the transfer of rights, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 52,276,420, the sum of the average 3,734,030 won per month while operating the instant fish driving school for 14 months from January 2013 to February 2014.

The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by illegal acts, such as deception, or nonperformance of obligation.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances as delineated below, there was a deception by the Defendant on the facts that there was no dispute, Gap 1 through 35, Eul 1 through 19, witness D, the purport of the entire pleadings), and the number of original students or profits and losses of the fish farming institute in this case.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was not able to perform the obligation under the instant contract for the transfer of right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion that is premised on this is without merit.

around July 2012, the Defendant requested the transfer of the instant fish farming institute to the real estate consulting office, etc. at KRW 200-25 million, and the number of originals is about 38, and the profit and loss was almost no net profit, and around December 2012, the premium was lowered to KRW 10 million.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff around July 2013, at the real estate brokerage office, etc., KRW 20,000,000 for premiums of KRW 10,000.