1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in food miscellaneous Do and retail business under the trade name of “C,” and D, as the Defendant’s children, has been employed as the Plaintiff’s employee since 2009.

B. D, on June 30, 2015, as the name “E”, opened a food materials company and registered its business under the name of the Defendant, and closed the business on August 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 42, 43, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s principal claim as the Plaintiff’s principal claim is as follows: D that commences the business in the name of “E” on June 30, 2015; and the Defendant’s restaurant as indicated in the separate customer list column among the customers of C (hereinafter “instant transaction company”).

2) The Defendant and the Defendant agreed to transfer the sales right to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the outstanding amount in the separate sheet No. 159,542,250 in a lump sum as indicated in the Plaintiff’s separate sheet No. 159,542,250 (hereinafter “instant outstanding amount”) on the Plaintiff’s transaction terms of the said transfer proceeds, and the Defendant agreed to receive the outstanding amount from the Plaintiff to receive the outstanding amount from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant payment agreement”).

AB made it.

After that, the Plaintiff notified the instant transaction company of the transfer of business rights, and the instant transaction company promised to pay the outstanding amount to the Defendant.

However, in violation of the instant payment agreement, the Defendant did not pay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the outstanding amount from the instant transaction entity due to the Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Plaintiff that the instant outstanding amount should be re-paid to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not agree to re-payment of the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff among the instant transaction companies around September 21, 2016.