1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the acquisition of the right (facilities) with the content that all rights, facilities, etc. of the restaurant “E” located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, D ground buildings 70.96 square meters, and 70.80 square meters of the second floor (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) to transfer premium of KRW 380 million.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F, the owner on July 26, 2016, to lease the instant restaurant with a deposit of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,700,000, and the lease term of KRW 4,700,000 from August 16, 2016 to June 15, 2021. After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant entered into a new lease agreement with F to lease the instant restaurant with a deposit of KRW 40,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 400,80,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,800, and the lease term of KRW 2 from November 22, 2017 to November 21, 2019.

C. After December 12, 2017, the Defendant completed a new business registration by making the trade name of the instant restaurant as “E” and up to now, the Defendant has registered its business in the name of the Defendant.

On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail that notifies the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract on the ground that the Defendant did not fully pay the down payment, intermediate payment, balance, etc. under the instant contract, even though the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to perform the obligation under the instant contract one-time text message and notified the rescission thereof, and around that time, the said content-certified mail was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate (determination on the defense before the merits of this case), the plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was rescinded by notification of the plaintiff's rescission due to the defendant's non-performance of obligation.