1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as annual 5% from October 13, 2016 to November 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the chief of Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E religious organization E, Seo-gu.

B. Around January 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the terms that the Plaintiff would be entrusted with the exclusive right to open and operate a Korean Ethical teacher (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The key contents are as follows.

The defendant shall delegate the former authority concerning the domestic abduction except for the overseas business division.

1. Fluories shall be as listed in the annexed sub-items;

2.Non-payment shall be collected after deposit at 100% by the following day from the date of gathering the deceased.

3. The fire items and deeds shall be managed by Section; and

The plaintiff shall represent the Republic of Korea Espawn Project Division.

1. No sale shall be made for those items other than those contracted by one teacher;

2. When violating the foregoing, the teacher shall be responsible for civil or criminal responsibility and shall recover the signboards of the teacher concerned;

3.Non-refilled money shall be collected after making a deposit at 100% by the following day from the date of gathering the deceased.

In the case of the above, the defendant shall pay the investment amount to the plaintiff three times.

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant three times the amount of investment.

(Korean Teachers: 30 million won per member)

C. From February 2016, the Plaintiff, either directly or by entrustment to a third party in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, H, etc., opened and operated E-Sa teacher.

On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had a third party, other than the Plaintiff, establish a teacher, thereby violating the instant agreement, and notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant agreement and suspended the business of the teacher.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the party to the agreement is not the E company but the defendant.

As to this, the defendant is not the defendant but E company, and the defendant is the defendant.