1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the head of F original branch with the authority to grant and recover the right of branch distribution within the original city.

B. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was recommended by the Defendant to operate the H points located in G and A-204, and operated the said store with KRW 23 million ( KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million, KRW 13 million, KRW 13 million, and KRW 13 million, as the Defendant’s proposal, closed the said H points on May 30, 2014, and integrated the said H points at the F original point that the Defendant operated. From May 30, 2014 to June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff operated the original branch with the Defendant.

C. On June 2014, the Plaintiff is to acquire and operate a restaurant “D” located in the original city C as a partnership with the Defendant, and on June 16, 2014, two million won as business progress expenses to the Defendant on June 16, 2014, and on June 19, 2014, the amount of household contract payment is KRW 13 million as household contract payment to the Defendant designated by the Defendant, and from June 28, 2014 to the same year.

7. By October, 200, a total of 30 million won was invested by the Defendant, such as remitting 10 million won into a contract balance under the cost of household goods and 10 million won to the Defendant by September 24, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant commenced a D store business from July 14, 2014, but did not continue the business with different opinions, and the Plaintiff transferred a partnership business share to the Defendant on October 26, 2014, and withdrawn from the partnership business.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion summary was organized with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay 45 million won out of 30 million won and 23 million won in the H point disposal expenses, and thus, sought payment of the transfer price.

In this regard, the Defendant did not settle the accounts as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if there was a family settlement agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won of the transfer price of shares in the same business as the Plaintiff on the D points, but the H point that decided to settle 15 million won is the Plaintiff.