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

A. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred 50% of the shares of Defendant B to Defendant C and 50% of the shares of Defendant C while he/she was jointly operated by the Defendants on September 1, 2017 as a share of 50%; and (b) transferred 50% of the shares of Defendant B to 100 million won; and (c) jointly operated 50% of the shares of Defendant C.

B. Accordingly, on September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership and termination contract with the Defendants on the instant cooking, and Defendant B entered into a transfer agreement with Defendant B to acquire the shares of the instant cooking won in KRW 100 million (However, the transfer agreement entered the acquisition price in KRW 30 million, not for the purpose of tax evasion; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant partnership and acquisition agreement”), and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendants B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. From June 2017 to June 1, 2017, the Defendants asserted for revocation due to fraud or mistake and concluded a contract for the same trade and transfer without notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that it is impossible to install a simplified sprinkler within the kitchen, while they knew that it is impossible to install a simplified sprinkler in the postnatal care center of this case. Since the Plaintiff’s rescission of the agreement for the same trade and transfer of this case by fraud or mistake, the Defendants are obligated to return the KRW 100 million to each Plaintiff in unjust enrichment. (2) The Defendants are not in dispute between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the arguments to the public health clinic of this case.