(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)

A. (1) On July 8, 2014, when the Plaintiff entered into a business start-up consulting contract with the Defendant Start-up Center (hereinafter “instant consulting contract”), the Plaintiff requested consultation as to whether Defendant B’s DNA store (hereinafter “instant D store”) is suitable for starting-up of tasks and beverage sales franchise (the contract document (Evidence A2) is the Plaintiff’s husband, who is not the contractual party, but the Plaintiff is the witness of the Defendant Start-up Center. However, the witness F, who was the employee of the Defendant Start-up Center, stated that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the person who started-up of Defendant B’s DNA store under the consulting contract is the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, the party to the instant consulting contract should be deemed the Plaintiff, not the party to the instant consulting contract), and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant Start-up Center pursuant to the instant contract.

(2) Under the instant consulting agreement, the Defendant Start-up Center provided the Plaintiff with a business start-up consulting report (hereinafter “instant report”) containing business district analysis, expected monthly sales, etc. regarding the instant D points. The Defendant Start-up Center analyzed the expected monthly sales of the instant D points in the instant report as KRW 4,140,00 [Around October 13, 2014 (=28,752 users per subway day x 1.2%) ¡¿ 4,000 won x 30 days]. The Plaintiff trusted the analysis details of the instant report, thereby making it difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into the instant franchise agreement with Defendant B on October 13, 2014.