The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 11, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 1, 2019 to February 28, 2021 with regard to the (hereinafter “instant apartment”) including the deposit amount of KRW 100,000 (payment of KRW 90,000,000) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 on the same day.

B. As to nonperformance and damages, Article 7 of the instant lease agreement provides, “If a lessee or lessee has failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of this agreement, the other party may demand in writing the person who has failed to perform the contract and rescind the contract. The other party to the contract may respectively claim damages arising from the termination of the contract against the other party, and the contract deposit shall be deemed as the basis for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

C. As to the instant apartment, on February 22, 2019, the registration of ownership preservation was completed with respect to the instant apartment as the owner of the E Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant borrowed KRW 130,000,00 from the FF association as security, and the Defendant should immediately complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant, and without notifying the Plaintiff of such fact, concluded the instant lease agreement and received the down payment from the Plaintiff.

After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff became aware of the instant apartment mortgage loan, and revoked the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure.

Therefore, the defendant returned 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff, and the lease contract of this case as compensation for damages caused by the breach of duty of disclosure.