1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the contracting party C (mutually named “G”) as “A” and drafted a “Agreement on Cooperation in Beauty and Beauty Services,” with the purport that C shall provide the Plaintiff with beauty art places on the first floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul building D (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”) and the Plaintiff shall exercise the exclusive right to dices and beauty art until December 31, 2012 during the contract term at the said place and pay KRW 500 million to C in return for the exercise of the exclusive right to dices and beauty art and to pay the business guarantee money.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). B.

H Co., Ltd. entered into a lease agreement on February 24, 2010 with the name of the lessee C on the condition that the first floor of the above D building and the competition room of 1,479.7 square meters shall be KRW 500,000,000 for lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 84,50,000 (excluding value-added tax) for ten years.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

H In the event that the payment of rent under the instant lease agreement was delayed, around March 16, 201, notified C that the instant lease agreement will be terminated on the ground that the rent was overdue in the future.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The argument about the primary claim: The plaintiff entered into the agreement of this case with the defendant who is the husband of C, and at the time, the defendant's business registration name is in the future C, and he cannot be the main agent of the business because he is going to go to a full-time marriage. Thus, the agreement of this case was prepared in the name of C in the form of form C, making two parties in the name of the agreement, and thus, the actual party of the agreement of this case is not C but the defendant.

Meanwhile, as the instant lease contract is terminated, the instant contract was terminated as the instant wedding was closed, and thus, the Defendant is out of KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff.