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. In order to conduct a restaurant business on September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she purchased a secondhand note from the Defendant from “D” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to purchase a secondhand note in KRW 900,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 750,000 in cash on the same day, 750,000,000 in a card.

Since then, the Plaintiff was unable to operate a restaurant business, and the Defendant agreed to cancel the instant sales contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not return KRW 750,000 that the Plaintiff paid in cash, and KRW 150,000 that was paid in the card.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff as the duty of restitution following the cancellation of the instant sales contract.

In addition, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 20,000,000 per day, KRW 100,000 per day, and KRW 300,00 as the Plaintiff had a card and visited D in order to refund KRW 1.50,000,00 which was settled by the card, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Plaintiff is premised on the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant.

The fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract and paid the purchase price to the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.

However, insofar as the Defendant did not assert or prove the fact that he is a business operator operating D, (in the registration certificate, E is a business operator of D), and the Defendant’s payment of the purchase price from the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a party to the instant sales contract solely on the ground that the Defendant was paid the purchase price from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.