1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) each of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) amounting to KRW 108,00,000 and KRW 45,00,000 to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract for the acquisition and transfer of facilities (facilities) of the right to pay KRW 120 million on October 15, 2013 for the key money of KRW 120 million for the key money and KRW 12 million for the key money to Defendant C and the key money of KRW 12 million for the key money and the remainder of KRW 18 million for the key money to be paid on the date of the contract, and after concluding a contract for the acquisition and transfer of facilities (facilities) on the date of the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 12 million on the date of the contract.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract for the transfer of the right (facilities) to pay KRW 50 million on October 15, 2013 to Defendant D, the lessee who operated the G’s clothes store at another store of the first floor of the building, and KRW 50 million on the premium for the said store, and KRW 5 million on the said contract date, the remainder of KRW 45 million on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 5 million on the contract date.

C. Meanwhile, on October 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the owner of the instant building and each of the above stores, setting the lease deposit of KRW 60 million per month, KRW 6 million per month, and the period from October 16, 2013 to October 15, 2016, and paid KRW 60 million on the day the lease agreement was concluded.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1 fraud or mistake that the contract cancellation claims were made on the grounds of the plaintiff's assertion 1 fraud or mistake, and they, including I who managed the building as 3 south of building owner H in the process of preparing open opening the store immediately after the conclusion of the lease contract, and that "the building of this case is scheduled to be removed immediately after its removal, and thus, would not transfer the store to the lessee and would not receive the premium." In addition, the building owner H with the age of 90 was judged to be dementia as 1st and 1st, even though the building owner and the intermediary were in the state of being determined to be dementia as 1st and 1st, respectively.