1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court: thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the lease contract of this case was revoked by deception pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Code, since the plaintiff was concealed even though the defendant did not have any idea to respond to the settlement prior to the lawsuit, and thus the lease contract of this case was concluded by deception of the defendant.

(2) On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to apply for the settlement prior to the filing date at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the settlement prior to the filing date to this court on November 2, 2017, but failed to reach the settlement prior to the filing date due to the Defendant’s failure to comply. However, the above recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had deceiving the Plaintiff as if they were to comply with the agreement prior to the filing date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. (1) The plaintiff argues that the contract of this case was cancelled in accordance with Article 109 of the Civil Act because it constitutes an error in the important part of the contract and thus, it is believed that the contract of this case was cancelled.

(2) In order to have an error in declaration of intention under Article 109 of the Civil Act, it should be deemed that there is no fact that there was no fact at the time of the juristic act, or that there was no fact that there was a fact that there was no fact at the time of the juristic act, and that there is a violation of the awareness and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact. Therefore, the