2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On February 2, 2012, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) entered into an entrustment transaction agreement with the Home Plusco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Home Plusco”), with the content that F sells the Home Plus, etc. in the name of the Home Plusco in the home Plus shop, a large number of the home Plus, and the Home Plus paid the remainder after deducting a certain amount of fees from the sales proceeds deposited.

(B) No. 2) 50,000 additional payment (won) 1 AH 20,000 from May 26, 2012 to May 25, 2013 (1 year) (1 year), 200,000 additional tax 3,000 to June 1, 2012, B I 200,000 CJJJ 3 from July 3, 2012 to July 2, 2015 (3 years) 120,000 franchise 5,000 franchise 5,000,000 franchise 5,000,000 deposit 10,000 deposit 10 to 10,000,000 deposit Do D D 200 to 15,81 (1 year from June 2015 to 3, 200, 207 to 37, 2005 (1 year from July 30, 20007)

B. From May 26, 2012 to August 1, 2012, between F and F, the Plaintiffs entered into a Homepl G sales contract (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with the purport that the Plaintiffs would operate the Homepler G sales license within the Homepler store as follows, and paid all the sales price to F around that time.

(Evidences 1 through 5-3). (c)

The details of each of the instant contracts are as follows.

(1) Unlike the rest of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff B prepared only “facility and business right transfer contract” and “store right transfer contract” but the purpose and content of the contract are the same as that of the rest of the Plaintiffs).

Article 9(1)(2) The F shall continue to make continuous efforts to establish a business plan for the continuous operation of the Home Plus “G” stores, to develop the main new development and names, and to control and develop the quality of goods.

(3) F is the following month after the end of each month according to the plaintiffs' consignment production and sales performance.