1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion: on May 2003, the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to take over the E frequency of the plaintiff's operation (hereinafter "the frequency of this case") of KRW 10 million as lease deposit and KRW 70 million as premium (cafeteria facility expenses, parking lot installation, kitchen equipment, automobile, water satisfaction, air conditioners, etc.). The plaintiff acquired the frequency of this case from the plaintiff during the same month.

However, the Defendants: (a) around May 2003, KRW 5 million; (b) around April 1, 201, KRW 20 million; and (c) the same year to the Plaintiff.

6.7.Around July, 2000, a total of KRW 10 million was paid.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million and delay damages.

The Defendants: (a) directly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff (the Defendant C entered into a separate lease agreement with the lessor). (b) The instant frequency was taken over to completely remodel the instant frequency, and operated a high contribution page at all times; and (c) there was no agreement on the payment of the premium claimed by the Plaintiff.

2. Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the KRW 10 million of a deposit for lease on the market, the key issue of this case is the existence of an agreement to pay KRW 70 million as claimed by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the fact that there is no disposal document to know the subject of acquisition, acquisition price, etc., and there is no evidence to support the objective value of the facilities, movables, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of an agreement on the payment of premiums, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based

[Although the Defendants entered into an agreement on the payment of premiums with the Plaintiff, it is presumed that merchants are commercial activities conducted for business purposes (see, e.g., Article 47 of the Commercial Act and Supreme Court Decision 98Da1584, Jan. 29, 199). The five years have passed since June 2003, which is the due date for payment of premiums, as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act.