1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal and the selective principal claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal.

1. The court of first instance dismissed both the plaintiff's principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed only the part concerning the claim for restitution among the part concerning the principal claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court added the claim for damages selectively at this court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part of the principal claim and the part of the claim for damages added in the trial.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

3. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the business takeover of this case was also known to the plaintiff before entering into the contract with the plaintiff, but did not notify the plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract of business takeover of this case. The fact that the procedure of auction of real estate is underway or the lawsuit of withdrawal of a building is pending is an important factor to determine whether to enter into the contract of business takeover, and if the plaintiff knew of it in advance, the business takeover of this case did not enter into the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant was obligated to notify the plaintiff of this fact.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant’s notice of default constitutes deception against the Plaintiff, and on October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of contents certifying the cancellation of the instant transfer of business on the grounds of the Defendant’s deception, and made a delivery of a copy of the complaint to the effect that the instant transfer of business was revoked.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek reimbursement of KRW 215 million for the acquisition price as the restitution of restitution or unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of the above contract, or sought damages equivalent to the said money due to the Defendant’s deception.

The Plaintiff appealed in part on the basis of the above amount.

B. The instant case.