1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, a company engaging in the wholesale and retail business of food and beverage, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on December 15, 2015, stipulating that the entire second floor (hereinafter “instant leased object”) among the buildings owned by the Defendant on the 623-1st ground (hereinafter “instant building”) on the 5th floor, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant is KRW 300 million, monthly rent of KRW 17 million, and the lease term of KRW 20 million from January 29, 2016 to January 29, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant a lease deposit of KRW 30 million.

B. The part related to the issue of the instant case among the instant lease agreement (Evidence A 3) is as follows.

Parts to be leased: Total floor area and 436 square meters of all the common areas [Matters under special agreement]

1. It shall be leased in the status of the present facilities;

4. The interior works may be carried out after the remainder payment date of this contract, and shall be determined from April 1, 201 to April 1, 201 as the date of calculating rent.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3

2. Determination as to the claim of this case

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the size of leased object is 436 square meters (Around 132 square meters = 436/3054) in the instant lease agreement and the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage. As such, the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement with the knowledge of the “exclusive area” of leased object about about 132 square meters for the opening of a middle restaurant, and the exclusive area was merely about 100 square meters, making it impossible for the Plaintiff to open a restaurant among restaurants according to the Plaintiff’s business plan.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case is based on mistake on the important part of the juristic act, and since the plaintiff cancelled it by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant is obligated to return the above lease deposit to the plaintiff by restitution following the above cancellation.

B. On the ground that there was an error in the content of a juristic act, a person who revokes an expression of intent on the ground of one mistake in determination.