1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The former lease contract 1) C is a person who operated a lottery restaurant in Busan and Seoul, with the trade name “D”. 2) C entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “existing lease contract”) between the Defendant on March 29, 2012, with respect to approximately KRW 160,00,000 of the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant store”), with respect to the lease deposit KRW 400,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), management expenses, KRW 1,280,000 (excluding value-added tax, KRW 8,000,000 per square day), and from April 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, and operated the “D substitute store” at the instant store.

B. The instant transfer contract and lease contract 1) C is the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) around December 2013.

B) As to the instant store, five D stores, including the instant store, concluded a contract to transfer 13 billion won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer contract”) the assets and operating rights of five D stores (in addition to the instant store, the pressure store in Seoul, the office store in Seoul, the debate store, and the Daejeon U.S. store), and the D trademark license (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer contract”).

(2) 2) C received from E the total sum of KRW 4 billion in the intermediate payment of KRW 3.6 billion on December 6, 2013, and the intermediate payment of KRW 3.6 billion on December 27, 2013, and delivered each of the said stores to E.

3) On March 25, 2014, E prepares a lease agreement stipulated in the terms of KRW 400 million for the instant store, KRW 14.5 million for a monthly rent (excluding value-added tax), management expenses, KRW 1,280,000 for management expenses (excluding value-added tax, KRW 8,000 for a flat party), and the term of lease from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2016 for the instant store (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

(C) A business transfer contract of this case was rescinded without a real lease deposit against the Defendant, and operated the “D substitute store” using the existing facility. (c) E, without good cause, clearly expresses its intent of non-performance, such as disputing the validity of the contract of this case, while failing to perform the obligation to pay the remainder of the intermediate payment and the remainder.