Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff has the interior of a company operating franchise business, etc. related to the cafeteria with the trade name "C" as a member in charge, and the defendant is a franchisee who operates the above cafeteria.

B. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a Dong business, registered each of the instant restaurants with the trade name “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in the name of the Plaintiff from around February 3, 2015, and operated from around March 1, 2017 in the name of the Plaintiff, in the name of “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”, and in the case of the title of the first and second restaurants, each of the instant restaurants (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant restaurants”) in the name of the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff used the profits, etc. of the first restaurant as the opening fund of the second restaurant, etc., and carried out the interior work at the time of opening the business of each of the instant restaurants, and the Defendant received materials from the Plaintiff from the time of opening the first restaurant to July 2017, and supplied them to the first restaurant after forming a spice swine machine.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the time of the instant agreement was around July 2017, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that the time of the agreement was around June 2017. However, as seen below, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to the Defendant on July 4, 2017, and the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated exchange from July 2017” in the reply, it is reasonable to deem that the said agreement was between July 2017.

According to the business registration name, the Plaintiff agreed to operate the first restaurant independently, and the Defendant agreed to terminate the business of each of the instant restaurants (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

E. The Plaintiff is operating the first restaurant solely until now, and the Defendant independently operated the second restaurant, and around April 12, 2019, transferred the said restaurant to F, a co-owner of the said restaurant building, the said restaurant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, 8, 11,