A. On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff-type B entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant store agreement”) on behalf of D in the name of D (B’s spouse), whereby deposit money of KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,000,000 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter “value-added tax”) was leased on behalf of D (hereinafter “instant store agreement”) from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014.

In addition, after completing business registration with F and business operator D on February 2, 2013, F and business operators operated the mobile phone sales store at the same place under the name of D and the mobile phone sales store in their own name.

B. B changed the existing mobile phone sales store into the Defendant’s agency and asked the Plaintiff to conclude an agency contract with the Defendant in its name.

Accordingly, on April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the business registration with G agency, and business registration with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, and on May 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agency contract (agency contract was renewed on December 17, 2013) with the agent owner, including the content of supporting the entire agency stores and facilities. The terms of the initial agency contract and the renewal contract were renewed once by the method of re-contracting on December 17, 2013. There is no ground to see that the contents of the initial agency contract are different except for the contract term. Thus, the Plaintiff entered into the subsidiary contract with the agent (i.e., “instant agency contract”).

However, the actual operator of the agency submitted the “self-introduction” letter to the Defendant at the time of the contract, stating that he is B, and the Defendant accepted it.

C. B, on April 23, 2013, the former owner, the Defendant, on the premise that himself/herself is the actual lessee of the instant building, all sorts of rights to lease and goodwill, etc. over the portion of the mobile phone sales store of this case among the instant buildings.