1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “the next 2. Additional Judgment” as to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is citing this as it is by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that ① the Defendant’s argument that he/she engaged in the business of operating a creative restaurant (hereinafter “F”) with his/her trade name multiplied by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), ② conducted a market survey on the creative business with the Defendant, and ③ agreed to make a joint operation of the instant restaurant with the profit distribution to 50:50, and ④ took part in the process of leasing the first floor of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the name of the Defendant, and taking part in the process of taking over the store business rights, ⑤ paid KRW 152 million with the above lease deposit and the shop related premium, thereby performing the obligation to make a contribution under the said business contract.

In addition, from the time of opening the restaurant of this case to June 2015, the Plaintiff continued to work in the restaurant of this case and took full charge of food materials and various orders, etc., other than preparation for the restaurant of this case, and carried out other duties, such as employee leave plans, various cost expenditure management, etc., and 7, in particular, the Plaintiff managed the Internet banking certification of the account in the Defendant’s name as to the restaurant of this case.

As such, the plaintiff and the defendant are obliged to pay to the plaintiff the settlement amount due to the termination of the partnership relationship, since they operated the restaurant in this case while they terminated the partnership relationship.

B. According to each of the facts stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 13, 16, 27, 28, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the defendant acquired the business right from Eul who operated a store in the instant real estate in November 22, 201 in a premium amounting to KRW 100 million, and on December 10, 201, the instant real estate in this case was acquired from E.