2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Dong”) concluded on July 4, 2012 that the Defendant and the Defendant provided funds of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and facility cost of KRW 10,000,000, and the operation of the restaurant and the operation of the restaurant shall be performed by the Defendant, but the Defendant bears all public charges, such as management fees, electricity taxes, and water taxes, and the profits arising from the operation of the restaurant shall be used for the living expenses of the original and the Defendant, and the Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with erosion and maintain a de facto marital relationship.

B. Accordingly, on July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and from August 20, 2012 to August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff had the Defendant operate the restaurant using the name of “Ecafeteria” (hereinafter “Ecafeteria”) from around that time, and completed the business report in the name of the Plaintiff at the competent administrative office on September 7, 2012.

C. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that “30,000,000 won invested by the Plaintiff in operating the instant restaurant shall be the joint name, and the profit accrued from operating the said restaurant shall be 50:50.”

(hereinafter above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade agreement”) by combining with a trade agreement dated July 4, 2012.

On the other hand, the instant restaurant was closed on July 23, 2013 due to the incombustibility and management difficulties between the original and the Defendant.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 6), 5-5-7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant provided an erosion to the plaintiff and maintained the marital life with the plaintiff's funds, thus leading the defendant to the restaurant of this case.