1. Between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), “C” located in the object of the attached lease agreement.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Common factual relations;

A. On December 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with D and two other parties to lease the object of “lease Contract” (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with a deposit of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 280 million, and the period from February 11, 2014 to February 11, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. From December 8, 2013 to February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 120 million to the Defendant several times as the said deposit, and the Defendant paid the amount to the lessor as the deposit.

C. Since then, on March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a restaurant called “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with various opening costs, such as carrying out the interior facility construction on the leased object, etc.

On the other hand, on March 5, 2014, the Defendant, as indicated in the attached Form “business report”, shall appoint the Defendant as his representative, and shall complete the business report on the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant business report”) with the Mayor of the relevant city, and completed the business registration on the instant restaurant in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Facts-finding, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the part on claim such as confirmation of goodwill of the instant restaurant among the principal office office, and on the counterclaim claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the cafeteria of this case is operated exclusively by the plaintiff and operated the cafeteria of this case. The defendant is merely the defendant's employee to receive wages. However, in order to avoid heavy taxation, the plaintiff entered into the lease contract of this case with the defendant in joint signature and made a business report and a business registration by lending the defendant's name to operate the cafeteria of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to operate the cafeteria of this case against the defendant who argued this.