A. From October 1, 2009, the Defendant established the right to lease on a deposit basis with the name of “E” from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2013, for the first floor of D building underground in Daegu-gu and one parcel, and operated the F” as “F” from February 2012 in the name of “E”.

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided the above main points, and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff should bear the expenses for the interior of the said main points and operate it and divide the net profits after deducting the expenses (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. From May 2012 to December 2012, the Plaintiff began the construction of the instant club. From the end of June 2012 to the end of December 2012, the Plaintiff operated the instant club with the trade name of “G” (hereinafter “instant club”) in the said place, and, according to the agreement with the Defendant, left the Defendant over the operation of the instant club from the beginning of January 2013. The Defendant operated the club for a weak month and suspended its operation.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer the right to operate the instant club, and around July 22, 2013, transferred the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to operate the instant club to H in KRW 100 million and KRW 100 million, and received KRW 200 million from H.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1, and 3 through 10, each entry or image, witness I and J respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant provided a place for F points to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to operate the instant club at its own expense and distribute profits excluding the costs by 1/2.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, after carrying out the artificial park construction with a cost of at least KRW 100 million, transferred the right to operate the instant club to the Defendant around January 2013, which did not generate any profit while operating the instant club. However, the Defendant operated the club.