1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claim of the principal lawsuit as modified at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2013, with respect to general restaurants with the size of 296.05 square meters, among 369.48 square meters which are the subject of the attached lease agreement, a lease agreement was concluded between the lessor and two other, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the lessee, the amount of KRW 1220 million, monthly rent of KRW 280,000,000 from February 11, 2014 to February 11, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, construction of various internal facilities for restaurant business was conducted on the leased object.

B. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) as indicated in the attached Form “Business Report”; (b) completed the business report on the restaurant whose name is “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (c) completed the business registration on the instant restaurant in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for confirmation of goodwill, etc. of the instant restaurant among the principal office office and a counterclaim claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's argument that the restaurant of this case was opened and operated exclusively by the plaintiff, and the defendant is merely a person who received benefits. In order to avoid heavy taxation, the plaintiff entered into the lease contract of this case under joint signature with the defendant to lend the defendant's name to operate the restaurant of this case and made a business report and a business registration to lend the defendant's name. Nevertheless, the defendant is disputing this. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation that the plaintiff has the right to operate the restaurant of this case and there is no partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to the operation of the restaurant of this case. The defendant is obligated to give the plaintiff a consent to change the name of the representative stated in the business report of the restaurant of this case to the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff and the defendant's allegation that the plaintiff and the defendant are the plaintiff.