1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to acquire the right to a restaurant in the E-factory (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) located in Defendant B and Suwon-si, Inc. D (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and paid KRW 180,000,000 to Defendant B by July 29, 2016. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant C (the Plaintiff’s brokerage commission for the Plaintiff, and the Defendants were the money in the name of the facility cost).

B. From August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant. However, “the instant restaurant is a cafeteria, which is operated mainly by an outside person, unlike the purpose of its use.” As such, the Plaintiff’s written opinion that he/she would arrange a cafeteria by June 30, 2017 or would not operate an outside person, was closed on or around June 30, 2017 at the request of the Suwon City.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the instant restaurant is a cafeteria which is unable to conduct business against outside persons from the beginning. The plaintiff and the defendants concluded the contract of this case with the amount of the premium on the premise that the business can be conducted against outside persons. The contract of this case is null and void since it is impossible to perform the obligation under the contract of this case.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 180,000,000 received as premium, and Defendant C is obligated to return KRW 20,000,000 received as intermediary fee, as unjust enrichment.

Preliminary, the Defendants, at the time of the instant contract, deceptioned the Plaintiff to the effect that the business against outside person was permitted at the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant B with an error on important parts, such as the sales of the restaurant, in which it was a mistake on the part of the

For the same reason, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract by serving the complaint of this case.