All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs have operated beauty rooms with trade names, such as D, E, and F.

In the process that the relevant business registration was completed on January 18, 2007 under the name of the Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B newly registered the business with the trade name “H” on April 19, 2016, and changed the trade name on May 25, 2017 to “F”. Plaintiff A filed a report on business closure on April 25, 2017, and revoked the business registration.

(hereinafter referred to as “the beauty room of this case,” regardless of the time of operation and trade name, which the plaintiffs operated.

Since August 1, 201, the Defendant, a stock company operating an entertainment business, etc., received services, such as hair fingers and mekes, from the beauty art room of this case for several years from August 1, 201.

The plaintiffs and the defendant did not prepare a written contract in the process, and when issuing a written estimate or a detailed statement or a tax invoice on the side of the plaintiffs, the transaction was conducted by the defendant in the way of paying the price.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including all of them; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiffs 1) In the beauty art room of this case, the Plaintiffs provided the Defendant’s artist with the services, such as the Hague design and Meaking business, and received the payment for that services. However, without preparing a separate service contract between the beauty art business entity and the large entertainment planning company, according to the epidemiological relationship or the practice of the industry, the Plaintiffs’ written estimates or specifications made on a monthly basis have been traded by the method of paying the price after confirmation by the Defendant. 2) The Defendant did not pay the service fees even after receiving the specifications and tax invoices from the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are the Plaintiffs.