1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In fact, on July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant all of the branch businesses operated by the Plaintiff in Seoul Jung-gu D and the first floor.

(2) On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an advisory service contract with the purport that the Plaintiff would provide the Defendant with services, such as the supply of pre-existing customers, receipts and disbursements, unpaid management, business, etc. (hereinafter “instant service contract”). Article 5 of the instant service contract provides for the service cost to be paid by the Plaintiff as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statements in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole argument as a whole, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.

With respect to the above service period, the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 32,400,000 (=1,800,000 x 18 months x 18 months), the Plaintiff shall receive the total of KRW 5,400,00 in ordinary bonuses, KRW 2,700,00 in retirement allowances, KRW 2,160,00 in ordinary food, and KRW 10,80,000 in operating expenses of the Defendant Company borne by the Plaintiff, and KRW 53,460,00 in average.

However, the Defendant’s service cost to be paid to the Plaintiff under the instant service contract is KRW 18,00,000 (=1,000,000 x 18 months x 18 months), and the unpaid incentives are acknowledged as the Defendant’s facts constituting the cause of 266,682. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 18,26,628 on the grounds that there is no dispute between the parties.

However, except the above service costs and incentives, there is no agreement that the defendant shall pay in the service contract of this case, and there is no reason to acknowledge it differently.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the operating expenses of the Defendant Company on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, there is no reason to view the remaining claims in addition to the above service costs and incentives 18,266,628 won.

As to this, the defendant is the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to 36,207,776 won against the plaintiff.