1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

The facts below are without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged in Gap evidence of 1 to 3, and Eul evidence of 10 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

[1] The defendant is a broadband service company that operates a credit card transaction approval agency service business, etc. (VN, VL-Ded Network).

The Ban service refers to the service of building and providing networks and collecting and keeping sales slips so that it can process affairs such as credit card inquiries, payment approval, and settlement of payments by transmitting credit cards, cash receipts, etc. to credit card companies or the National Tax Service.

Plaintiff

B is the actual operator of D registered as the defendant's service agency, and the plaintiff A is the representative of D's business registration.

[2] On July 1, 2008, among D and the Defendant, a business partnership agreement was concluded between D and D, under which the Defendant would make it possible for D to collect a service-related franchise store and to pay the fees that the Defendant would have agreed upon when performing management duties of the franchise store (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On September 2009, D and the Defendant entered into an agreement between D and the Defendant on the management of the Defendant’s member stores using the “Eve Card” service executed by the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs (hereinafter “Eve Card”) to pay a certain amount of fees for each credit card approval case.

(hereinafter “The First Convention”). On March 22, 2011, between D and the Defendant, the “E Marketing Business Association Agreement” was concluded between D and D to pay a certain amount of sales revenue that the Defendant gains in connection with the chain store affiliated with the Defendant’s electronic settlement agency service through D’s arrangement as a commission to D (hereinafter “the Second Convention”). The Plaintiffs’ assertion that Plaintiff A is a party to the instant contract and the First Convention and the Second Convention, respectively, to receive a fee from the Defendant.