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

A. The Defendant was operating a restaurant with the name of “E” between the Home Pusers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Home Puss”) in the Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, by leasing the Home Pusler D set 2nd floor of the Home Puss D (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant to pay the business transfer amount of KRW 47 million in relation to the E’s business, and KRW 5 million in the down payment on the contractual day, and to pay the remainder of KRW 42 million on November 30, 2012. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 42 million in the remainder on November 30, 2012, respectively.

C. In order to clarify in writing the above oral agreement on December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a contract with the same content as the above oral agreement, and entered the following contents therein:

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer of business”). One million won out of the deposit amount of 3 million won entering the name at the headquarters of the Home Plus, exhibited, shall be used by the Plaintiff as the re-contract amount with the Home Plus head office, and the remaining two million won shall be returned to the Defendant along with the head office.

On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff operated the business after being transferred E from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, witness F, testimony of G and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion entered into the contract of the business transfer of this case with the plaintiff, and the defendant knew the plaintiff to "to allow the plaintiff to re-contract the business transfer of this case in KRW 10 million," and did not allow the plaintiff to re-contract the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million in the lease renewal contract of the Home Plus and the store of this case. The plaintiff did not allow the transfer of ownership. Thus, the contract of the business transfer of this case was cancelled as of the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case as of the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the defendant's illegal act (the network).