1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is a person who has operated E-mail shop in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On March 21, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the instant sales right from Defendant B to KRW 40 million, and paid the down payment of KRW 2 million on the same day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 18 million on March 23, 2015, respectively, to the Defendant, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was to be paid on August 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Until June 2015, the Plaintiff, while running the instant store, discontinued its business due to health aggravation, and requested the Defendants to take the instant order.

Defendant C transferred the instant license to F on July 16, 2015, and was paid KRW 15 million from F while Defendant C transferred the instant license to F, and currently F is running business at the instant store.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 13, Eul No. 1, 5, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the return of down payment and intermediate payment following the termination of the lease agreement is a real estate lease agreement. The Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with F on the instant order upon request of the Defendants by the Plaintiff’s disposal due to the Plaintiff’s health aggravation. As such, the instant agreement was terminated, the Defendants asserted to the purport that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to refund the down payment and intermediate payment that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff as the lease deposit.

In light of the above legal principles, as long as the content of a disposal document is acknowledged to be genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent by the content of the document, unless there is any counter-proof as clear and acceptable to deny the content of the document (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2169, Jun. 26, 1990).