1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is a counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for the building Jinhae-gu C and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2017, the Defendant registered his/her business with the trade name, “E stores,” in the name of his/her husband and wife H, and run the laundry business (hereinafter “instant laundry”).

B. On August 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the instant laundry business in the purchase price of KRW 54 million (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On August 4, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million with the purchase price under the instant contract, KRW 10 million on August 31, 2017, KRW 10 million on August 31, 2017, and KRW 10 million on September 4, 2017, respectively, to the bank account under the H’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant proposed that the Plaintiff take over the instant laundry business in the amount of KRW 60 million (the franchise fee of KRW 17 million-20 million, the Si equipment and security deposit of KRW 25 million-28 million, the security deposit of KRW 15 million, and the security deposit of KRW 15 million. The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant at the end of the agreement with the Defendant by setting the sales amount of KRW 54 million.

However, on October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the franchise fee paid to the headquarters of the laundry store in currency with the employee of the headquarters of the laundry store in this case was KRW 2.75 million.

The Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff as “17 million won-20 million won,” and concluded the instant contract with the belief of this case. As such, the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, cancelled the instant contract with the delivery of a preparatory document dated April 10, 2018, and demanded the Defendant to return KRW 30 million received from the Plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, evidence adopted prior to the judgment, evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and the purport of the entire arguments, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is by deceiving the Plaintiff of the amount of the franchise fee.