1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff is a person working in the position of “D” entertainment bars (the main points of this case) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant served as a entertainment loan at the above main points from March 17, 2011 to March 16, 2012.

(C) Facts that there has been no dispute, the purport of the whole pleading.

Plaintiff

As a person in charge of the management of the issue related to the defendant, the plaintiff paid on behalf of the defendant the service charges for the contact loan and the water, etc. managed by the defendant.

(E) In calculating according to the business log, the sum to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 70,88 million (the sum to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 17,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, - KRW 246,90,000,000,000,000,000).

On the other hand, the defendant agreed to receive 35% of the sales amount of the main office of this case, and the defendant deposited 8.13 million won in excess of the main office of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,267,00 ( KRW 70,880,000 - KRW 8130,00) and damages for delay, which are calculated by deducting the above excessive amount from the above total amount of deposit.

C. 1) First, we examine whether the Defendant’s claim for monetary payment exists with respect to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the settlement of the obligation and obligation arising out of the part sold by the Defendant in the operation of the instant main office. However, the Plaintiff’s main office is registered as E (Evidence A5-4), and the obligee with respect to the main office sale appears to be the above E, a business operator. Even if the Plaintiff is deemed to be the “management manager” with respect to the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the claim against the Defendant naturally belongs to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the mere fact that the Defendant transferred the money from the customer of the main office to the account in the Plaintiff’s name (Evidence B-2), is insufficient to deem that the said claim is reverted to the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to say that the N.B. currency.