1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized as being based on Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, 13, and 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness C’s testimony, as a whole, of the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. From March 201, the Defendant requested the transfer of the instant private teaching institute to a certified broker operated by C around August 2012 while operating the instant private teaching institute located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”).

B. C around November 2012, the Plaintiff had an interest in the takeover of the instant private teaching institute, and around that time, requested the Defendant to inform the Defendant of the sales and fixed expenditure around November 2012.

Accordingly, on November 2012, the Defendant: (a) prepared a document to the effect that the sales revenue of the instant private teaching institute was KRW 344,440,000 in the custody department; (b) KRW 7,3350,00 in total; and (c) major expenses, other than personnel expenses, were KRW 22,29,60 in total; and (c) labor cost was KRW 2,826 in total; and (d) delivered it to C

C Based on the above documents, on December 3, 2012, on the Internet sales website operated by the Plaintiff, the instant private teaching institute stated the monthly average sales of approximately KRW 73 million, monthly average sales of KRW 51 million, monthly net income of KRW 22 million, and the Plaintiff also notified the Plaintiff of the aforementioned contents.

C. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer of a private teaching institute and a real estate (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease of the right to lease the facilities, operation, etc. of the private teaching institute of this case from the Defendant for KRW 200 million.

According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 380 million to the Plaintiff on December 7, 2012, and KRW 360 million on January 16, 2013.

E. On February 2013, the Plaintiff, as to the average sales, average expenditure, average net income, etc. of the instant driving school.