1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 195,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 19, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received from all lessees of Songpa-gu Seoul and 1st floor C, which was used as a restaurant, and installed two guest rooms; and (b) obtained permission to engage in dysium business; and (c) thereafter, on January 12, 2016, the Defendant obtained permission to engage in dysium business; (d) two above guest rooms were combined with one space; and (e) more than two guest rooms were installed in the next space.

On the other hand, the main part of the above place of business (7.374m2) was extended without permission.

(See Attached ground plan; hereinafter the above place of business is not clear when illegal extension of the place of business is made, but it seems that the defendant will take over the place.

B. On November 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer all of the rights of lease (lease deposit KRW 50 million), business license and facilities (hereinafter “instant contract”) at KRW 195 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) around that time, and completed the report on succession to the status of business operator on November 28, 2016. At the time of the said contract, the Plaintiff did not receive notice from the Defendant that the change of the guest room was made after the said business license, and that the main part was extended without permission.

C. The Plaintiff, while running the instant dan from around December 2016, became aware of the aforementioned unauthorized remodeling and unauthorized expansion, resisting the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 30, 2016.

The Plaintiff asserts that, before the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant notified the Defendant that the contract was revoked by reason of fraud or mistake by content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 23, Eul evidence No. 13, witness E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant intentionally concealed the illegal extension or alteration of the instant danran bar, which constitutes a deception on an important part contrary to the good faith principle in light of trade practice.