1. As to KRW 55,00,000 and KRW 20,000 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 from September 16, 2015.

Basic Facts

C is the plaintiff's birth and D (Defendant's attorney) is the defendant's husband.

C and D, around March 17, 2015, respectively, drafted a business partnership agreement on the restaurant business of “E” in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively, (hereinafter “instant restaurant business agreement”).

C and D, August 29, 2015, in relation to the termination of the instant trade agreement, signed an agreement with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant termination agreement”).

This Agreement is an agreement to terminate a partnership agreement.

On March 17, 2015, the contract under which the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement.

C and D, a de facto business owner, reverse a partnership agreement on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, and D, pay a monetary amount of C's share, thereby acquiring business rights by 100%.

The terms of acceptance shall be as follows:

The written agreement shall be prepared on September 30, 2015, KRW 3,000,00,000,000,000 on August 31, 2015, and KRW 3,000,00,000,00,000, and KRW 3,000,000,00,00, and KRW 3,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 and 2, witness C's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff party, defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining acquisition price (=20 million won) as the acquisition price was paid to the plaintiff KRW 10 million out of the acquisition price under the termination contract of this case (=25 million won).

The parties to the instant agreement and the termination agreement are D (Defendant) and C, and the Plaintiff is not a party, and the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim the acquisition price to the Defendant.

In full view of the circumstances described below, it is reasonable to view that C and D respectively were lawfully concluded upon delegation by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Even if C and D concluded the termination contract of this case without delegation from the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.