1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant’s agent C, leased approximately KRW 20,000,000 for the first floor of the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) to KRW 5 million for the lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 for the lease deposit, and from February 21, 2012 to February 20, 2014 for the lease term.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From the time when the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff intended to operate the Ski as a mutually beneficial convenience store, i.e., “Esper”, which was existing in the instant building.

C. However, on February 21, 2012, the Incheon Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentF Group, where the instant building is already located, had the Korea Land and Housing Corporation initiates the procedures for compensation for G residential environment improvement projects implemented by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

Therefore, the defendant lost ownership of the building of this case, and the above building was to be removed.

Under the above circumstances, the Defendant was obligated to notify the Plaintiff, who intends to use the instant building as a convenience store, of the fact that the said building was incorporated into the G Residential Environment Improvement Zone and that the instant building may be removed therefrom.

E. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not notify at all of such fact, and instead, in the process that the Plaintiff changed the use of the instant building to convenience stores, the Defendant actively cooperated in changing the use of the instant building by filing an application for electric extension construction with the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

F. Since then, the Plaintiff changed the “Esper” of the instant building to a convenience store.

G. The Plaintiff should pay a penalty equivalent to KRW 58,077,60 for the remainder of the test at the Korea Development Network Co., Ltd., a franchise business headquarters, as a result of the removal of the instant building.

Therefore, the plaintiff has violated the duty of disclosure against the defendant.