1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except in the following cases, from 4, 16 to 6, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Re-use portion “(i) H that operated the instant restaurant with the Defendant’s denial is the mother of the Plaintiff’s representative E, and D and C that established the Plaintiff with E as the Plaintiff’s representative.

The instant sales contract between relatives and relatives was concluded in a form different from the general sales contract, such as: (a) the Plaintiff, at the time of the contract, was to receive the instant restaurant operation from the Defendant; (b) there was no other payment in addition to the instant vinyl from the Defendant; (c) the purchase price of KRW 560 million was to be paid after about 10 months from the date of the contract; and (d) the amount of KRW 4 million per month from the date of the contract was to be paid.

② In addition, even after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, H had the opportunity to operate the instant restaurant. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was “monthly pay” for the Defendant, including the price that H helps the Defendant to do.

(B) On January 16, 2018, 400,000 won was paid monthly.

In other words, H was scheduled to intervene continuously in the operation of the restaurant of this case even after the sales contract of this case, and the money that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay to the Defendant each month in the financial situation of the Plaintiff, which was not able to pay some of the payments at the time of the sales contract of this case, or the sales amount after the payment was also premised on the operation

Therefore, the continuous operation of the restaurant of this case was closely related to the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of its obligations under the sales contract of this case.

③ In such circumstances, the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant restaurant is an internal dispute on April 2, 2017.