1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 2016. 6. 6. 피고와 사이에 고양시 일산동구 C, 1층에 있는 ‘D’ 식당(이하 ‘이 사건 식당’이라 한다)에 관하여 다음과 같은 내용으로 권리금 3,300만 원에 시설운영권리양도계약(이하◆특약사항◆ 배달 포함 일일매출 450건을 인정하며 식수 미확인시 이 사건 계약을 해지한다(10% 가감 없음). 배달차량 다마스 5대 인수인계하며 일부 차량 일부 있음을 확인한다. 고양시 일산동구 E 201호 보증금을 인수인계한다(보증금 별도 계산) ‘이 사건 계약’이라 한다)을 체결하였다.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33 million to the Defendant, and received delivery of the instant restaurant, and operated the said restaurant from June 13, 2016.

C. On July 26, 2016 and August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content that contains the purport that the instant contract will be rescinded, as the fixed number of customers at the instant restaurant falls short of 450 persons, but all of them were returned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 450 cases of daily sales of the instant restaurant. The Defendant set the premium on the basis of the daily sales of the instant restaurant, and provided the Plaintiff the right to terminate the instant contract if the daily sales or fixed customer does not reach the above number.

However, since the plaintiff started the operation of the restaurant of this case, the sales actually revealed after the commencement of the operation of the restaurant of this case was 360 to 370 households per day. Since the defendant deceivings the plaintiff with respect to the fixed customer and daily sales, which are the most important factor in the contract of this case, the plaintiff acquired the right to cancel the contract of this case, and as daily sales fall short of 450 items, the contract of this case acquired the right to cancel as stipulated in the contract

The plaintiff has cancelled or cancelled the contract of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.