1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement that leases the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, and the lease term from September 15, 2017 to September 14, 2019 with respect to the building for the first floor located in Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who was the former lessee of the instant real estate, to acquire all facilities related to the instant real estate from the Defendant for a premium of KRW 15 million.

(hereinafter “The instant premium contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 5 million on July 7, 2017, and KRW 7 million on July 14, 2017, pursuant to the instant premium contract.

On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to the instant lease agreement with C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff, at the time of concluding the premium contract of this case, the defendant asserted that the premium of this case was also recognized to the plaintiff as the lessor. However, the lease contract of this case was concluded because the landlord C did not recognize the premium of this case.

As above, as long as the Plaintiff did not receive the transfer of the right of lease of this case by deceiving the Plaintiff, the premium contract of this case premised on the conclusion and maintenance of the instant lease becomes null and void or cancelled, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7 million as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the Defendant’s deception alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant deceptions the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

The plaintiff, as to the invalidity or cancellation of the premium contract of this case, asserts the invalidity or cancellation of the premium contract of this case, which is premised on the conclusion and maintenance of the contract of this case, so there is no dispute over the premium contract of this case, and evidence A 1 through 6 respectively.