1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff, who was in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, engaged in the operation of the D cafeteria as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”). At the time, C was in bad credit standing relationship, and C was in the name of the Defendant with the deposit account necessary for the registration and operation of the above cafeteria.

B. After that, C, on November 2014, was difficult to operate the restaurant because it was difficult for the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff the proceeds of the instant restaurant properly, thereby transferring the Plaintiff’s registered name of the operator of the instant restaurant.

C. Meanwhile, from December 1, 2011 to January 20, 2015, C operated the instant restaurant by managing the said deposit account before the Defendant withdraws the deposit passbook related to the operation of the instant restaurant, and executing funds of the restaurant. The Defendant did not actually participate in the operation of the instant restaurant.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 8, 13 (including the provisional parcel number circulation for those with a serial number), part of the witness C of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, the primary cause of the claim, jointly with C, operated the instant restaurant, and decided to operate only the business operator registration in the name of the Defendant, and actually operated the instant restaurant.

However, on November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and C agreed to change the business registration in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to do so.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to express his/her consent to change the name of the operator of the restaurant in this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and C initially entrusted the name of the proprietor of the instant restaurant to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and C agreed to the name of the proprietor of the instant restaurant as the Plaintiff according to the agreement between the Plaintiff and C, and requested the Defendant to terminate the title trust.

Therefore, the defendant has obtained permission or delegation from C.