1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From July 11, 2005, the Plaintiff, as a certified tax accountant, registered his business with the trade name “certified tax accountantA office” from the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 3 (hereinafter “instant building”) and operated his office. From around 2007, the Plaintiff was operating the said office with an unqualified Defendant and a partnership business.

(The defendant worked as the head of the office at the above office. (hereinafter the plaintiff's tax accountant office "the office of this case"). (b)

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, from October 2008, gave birth to E during the period of their lives while maintaining a de facto marital relationship and living together, but the de facto marital relationship was broken down around 2010.

C. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the termination and settlement of the partnership relationship with the following content:

(hereinafter “instant agreement”) On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall have all the rights of the instant office under the agreement.

The defendant shall pay 3 million won per month to the plaintiff, and shall remit 700,000 won per month to the parent's living expenses.

The defendant shall repay the plaintiff's early loans of KRW 100 million and the amount of loans from the head of Mapo Bank each year in installments.

The Plaintiff cannot additionally withdraw the card price or expenses from the account of the instant office.

If the above agreed terms are violated, the defendant's obligation to pay KRW 3 million per month to the plaintiff is extinguished, and the defendant shall transfer the office of this case to another tax accountant's name.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, which is the primary cause of a claim, voluntarily terminated the tax agency contract with the company that accepted the tax agent business by around 2016, and caused damage to the Plaintiff by having the tax accountant F enter into the tax agent contract with the said company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to KRW 464,414,748 equivalent to the continuing corporate value of the said office.