1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2005, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s Government-si C, D’s six-story telecom (hereinafter “instant telecom”).

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 5,000,000 invested by 25,000 and 25,000,000,000 invested by friendly job offering E, and, internally, determined the ratio of E and profit distribution to 50:50,000, operated the instant franchise as a partnership business.

The F, which was in a relationship with the Defendant, has been operating the instant telecom since that time.

B. The Defendant, instead of paying monthly rent to the Plaintiff at the fixed date of each month, from time to time, remitted earnings to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to accumulate the excess of monthly rent as additional lease deposit.

C. Around May 2007, the Defendant returned 25,000,000 won of the investment to E and began to operate the instant telecom independently.

From June 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reduced the rent of this case to KRW 5,500,000, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant tried to accumulate as additional lease deposit the excess of the monthly rent out of the profits that the Defendant paid to the same person as the previous.

E. On September 2012, the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant her claim to F, and (b) thereafter, the Defendant occupied and operated the instant her claim alone.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on November 3, 2012, F filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the settlement amount for the said business relationship, premised on the premise that F and the Defendant entered into a business partnership agreement on the joint operation of the instant franchise, as the District Court 2012Gahap13429, but the said court dismissed F’s claim on March 28, 2014 on the ground that it cannot be deemed that F and the Defendant were in a business partnership relationship. The said court, the appellate court, on the same ground, dismissed F and F, for the same reason as F and F, on November 20, 2015.