1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from November 11, 2017 to October 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant who operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “D” in the building located in the Jeonsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) to acquire the business facilities, goodwill, etc. of the instant restaurant at premium of KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant contract”), and on the same day, paid KRW 5 million as part of the acquisition price to the Defendant on the same day.

B. However, there was an objection or dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the terms and conditions of transferring the instant restaurant.

C. After October 2017, the Defendant transferred business facilities, etc. of the instant restaurant to a third party. Around that time, a third party continued to operate the instant restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant requested only the remainder payment to the plaintiff without settling various public charges, such as unpaid water charges and electricity charges, etc., by the payment deadline, and transferred the instant restaurant to a third party, thereby making the contract of this case impossible to perform the contract of this case, and as such, the contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant should return the down payment to the plaintiff by restitution."

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “The instant contract was concluded with the Plaintiff seeking to rapidly transfer the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff did not pay any balance despite urging several times, and notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract was reversed due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance and transferred the instant restaurant again to a third party around October 2017. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million as the contract deposit of the instant case to the Plaintiff as the penalty or damages for the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return it.”

(b) judgment;