1. The following part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

2. The defendant.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part on "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to G, who is the president of the cell phone store on the first floor of the instant building, by deceiving the Defendant to pay KRW 15 million to the Defendant as premium. In fact, the Defendant paid KRW 15 million a lease deposit to be returned to the lessee upon termination of the lease contract for the said cell phone store. The Plaintiff’s agent F did not know of such fact, and instead, did not make an agreement on the Plaintiff’s use of the instant building for the purpose of altering the purpose of the use of the instant lease agreement under Article 110 of the Civil Act, which prevents the Plaintiff from performing the alteration of the purpose of the use of the instant building due to the Defendant’s non-performance of the lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff’s agent F made a non-performance agreement on KRW 12 million a considerable amount of less than KRW 35 million a deposit and premium paid to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff, which is a double of the amount received as down payment pursuant to Article 7 of the instant lease agreement, and return KRW 15 million received as premium to the Plaintiff as the restitution to the original state. However, the Defendant received KRW 12 million from the Defendant on October 26, 2016, and thus, the remainder of 4.4 million.