1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the D store located in Yangju-si (hereinafter “instant store”) with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 10 million (in addition to value-added tax and KRW 1100,000,000), and the lease period of KRW 24 months and operated the restaurant.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly invested facility costs, etc. to operate the instant restaurant with mutual name “E” at the instant store (hereinafter “E”), and accordingly, jointly operated the instant restaurant from February 3, 2017 to March 2, 2017.

C. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a receipt (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant receipt”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall receive KRW 30 million with the premium and deposit with respect to the instant restaurant” to the Defendant.

After that, while maintaining the name of the operator and lessee of the restaurant in this case, the Defendant used the accounts of the Yangju Community (F) in the name of the Plaintiff while operating the restaurant in this case, and retired his business before March 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition of the operator of the instant restaurant after March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff issued the instant receipt to the Defendant on March 10, 2017, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant independently operated the instant restaurant on the grounds that the business relationship with the original Defendant terminates, such as the Plaintiff’s transfer of all the rights to the instant restaurant to the Defendant, etc. on or around March 10, 2017.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the original defendant had engaged in a partnership business and requested the defendant to operate the restaurant of this case solely only at the time when the plaintiff had been placed in the partnership business, and that the defendant lent 30 million won to the plaintiff as security for the plaintiff's lease deposit claim, premium, etc. and operated the restaurant solely at the time of locking the above restaurant. However, after March 10, 2017, the defendant operated the restaurant with the plaintiff.