The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The party-related defendant company is a corporation established for the purpose of food franchise business, etc., and the defendant B is the nominal owner who entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant company, and the plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with the defendant B at the time the above franchise agreement was entered into.

B. Defendant B entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant Company and took over and operated the instant franchise store from March 1, 2019. The Plaintiff was responsible for the expenses incurred in accepting and operating the instant franchise store.

(c)

On March 13, 2020, Defendant B filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff due to the wrongful destruction of a de facto marital relationship (Seoul Family Court Support 2020 Ddern 101136), and the said lawsuit is currently in progress.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the actual operating authority that the Plaintiff bears all expenses incurred in acquiring and operating the instant franchise store, and the Defendant B is merely the trustee under the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff cancels the trust agreement with Defendant B by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the part of the Plaintiff.

3. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff bears the expenses incurred in acquiring and operating the instant franchise store.

However, considering that the Plaintiff and Defendant B were in a de facto marital relationship, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff is a de facto operator of the instant franchise store and Defendant B is merely the trustee under the name of the Plaintiff.

Rather, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, namely, ① freely withdraw money from the passbook opened in the name of the instant chain store and used the card connected to the said passbook; ② Defendant B was in exclusive charge of the instant chain store business; ③ the method of operating the instant chain store; and ③ the occurrence of the deficit and the method of resolution thereof, are continued between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.