1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 201, the Defendant: (a) determined and leased the fourth-story building located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, as the rental deposit deposit amounting to KRW 30,000,000, monthly renting to KRW 3,550,00, and the period from July 21, 201 to July 31, 2016.

B. The Defendant operated the Gosiwon as the Plaintiff’s trade name in the above building (hereinafter “The Gosiwon”).

C. As of November 5, 2013, with respect to the instant Gosiwon, a contract for the transfer of the rights (other than studio 35 (excluding office, warehouse) was prepared by the transferor, transferee E, premiums 132,00,000, and the entire facilities inside and outside the scope of transfer (other than office, warehouse).

On December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the agreement to succeed to the lease under the above paragraph (a).

E. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff registered his/her business under his/her own name and operated the KCAB business.

F. On June 10, 2016, the annual LAD Global notified the Plaintiff, by November 30, 2016, to restore the facility to its original state and deliver the building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim:

A. The Defendant, even though he did not have installed a public notice source facility, deceiving the Plaintiff to make an investment in the facility, thereby deceiving the premium.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 132,00,000 as damages and damages for delay.

B. Since the Defendant did not perform the contract, it is obligated to return the premium to its original state due to nonperformance.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the transferee is indicated in E in the contract for the acquisition of rights, and that the defendant is unaware of the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff as the party to the contract for the acquisition of rights of this case solely on the ground that the plaintiff succeeded to the lease contract and engaged in the notified source business

Furthermore, the Defendant is either the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s statement on the evidence No. 5.