1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 16, 2009, between C and Defendant’s representative, the Plaintiff’s “D” store “D” store (hereinafter “instant store”).

(3) The agreement to pay 20,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant investment agreement”) upon receipt of 30% of the profits accrued from the said agreement in cash each month and at the time of the request of one year after the agreement, on condition that the invested principal be recovered.

The Plaintiff concluded the instant investment agreement and paid KRW 200,00,000 to the Defendant based on the instant investment agreement. The Plaintiff was regularly paid a certain amount of profit until September 2010, and the Plaintiff was not paid from October 2010. As such, the Plaintiff is seeking return of the investment principal or termination of the instant investment agreement by the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the Defendant is the amount calculated by assuming that the annual revenue from the instant store is 5% of the investment principal, which was accrued from the instant lawsuit (from October 2010 to February 2014, which was 34,16,666 won (20,000,000 x 5% per annum x 41/12,00,000,000 x 5% of the annual revenue from the instant store and the annual revenue from the instant store is 41% of the investment principal.

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 234,166,666,00,00, including the investment principal of KRW 200,000,000. However, the Plaintiff’s 200,000,000,000 out of the above amount, and the Plaintiff did not clearly indicate the amount of the investment amount, and there is no clear indication as to the amount of the investment amount. The Plaintiff also sought damages for delay from the day immediately after the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint. Meanwhile, even if the Defendant did not delegate the authority to conclude the instant investment agreement to C, in the instant case, there is a circumstance to deem that the Defendant is liable to act as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act or that the Defendant ratified the instant investment agreement. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to perform the same duty as the Plaintiff appears to have agreed on.