1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 280,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 13, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around November 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) who were engaged in franchising business with the trade name “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “D”), concluded a business agreement with the Defendant and the Defendant that “The Plaintiff sold parent products directly produced at the department store. Internal management, such as investment in funds and production of products, etc., such as internal management, such as capital, and the Defendant are responsible for external management, such as know-how investment in design, etc., and the relationship between the customer.”

B. Under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant on December 1, 2014, and KRW 200,00,000 on January 29, 2015, respectively, pursuant to the instant agreement.

C. The Plaintiff brought a dispute over additional investment with the Defendant immediately after the investment.

The plaintiff asserted the reversal of the partnership relationship to the defendant immediately and demanded the return of the contribution.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased the mother fee with the plaintiff's contribution, and is in the business independently.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) In the partnership relationship, that is, where one of the two parties has invested in the partnership relationship, that is, the partnership relationship, immediately a partnership relationship between the parties and where the partner performing the said investment obligation has been managed by the rest of the union members, excluding entirely from the partnership relationship, the partnership relationship may seek dissolution due to unavoidable reasons, and the partner performing the said investment obligation may seek the return of the amount of the investment he/she has invested, as a result of the withdrawal;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62006 Decided April 26, 2007). B.

According to the above facts, the business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was destroyed immediately after the plaintiff's investment. Thus, the plaintiff claims dissolution of the business relationship due to unavoidable reasons and the defendant's withdrawal from the business relationship.