1. Plaintiff 1, among the parts against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amount:

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the plaintiff's addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as it is.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Although there was no default or deception by the Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff, Defendant B did not conclude a consulting service agreement with the Plaintiff on the case of D High School shop, and thus, the amount of the contingent fee of KRW 4 million received from the Plaintiff should be returned. Defendant C agreed to return the deposit amount of KRW 5 million after the completion of the franchise contract. Thus, Defendant C shall return it to the Plaintiff, as it agreed to refund the deposit amount of KRW 5 million after the completion of the franchise contract.

B. (1) The judgment of the court below (1) requested Defendant C to give a strong attention to the Plaintiff’s will on the ground that Defendant C has diminished in bidding at the Da high school shop. The Plaintiff’s acceptance that Defendant C participated in bidding at the Da high school shop on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise contract with Defendant C on behalf of the Plaintiff and operated the Da high school shop. The Plaintiff did not explicitly indicate the object of business establishment in accordance with the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a consulting service contract with the NA high school as the object of business establishment but thereafter changed the object of business into the Do high school with the consent of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s argument on the refund of contingent remuneration is without merit.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and defendant C concluded a franchise agreement on October 21, 201, and five million won out of the amount of KRW 20 million paid by the plaintiff while entering into the franchise agreement.