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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, invoked by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following supplementary judgments.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. A confession during a trial refers to a statement made by the parties on the date for pleading or at the date for preparatory pleading, which is unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations by the other parties, and a statement that recognizes a legal relationship or legal effect, which is a premise of a subject matter of a lawsuit, is not binding on the court, as the right

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da87061 Decided March 27, 2008, etc.). B.

The plaintiff's argument in the trial of the court of first instance is the same as that in the court of first instance.

According to the examination, the plaintiff sought compensation for losses equivalent to the business start-up cost provided by the plaintiff on May 1, 2016 and the profits for two years on the ground that the defendant violated the obligations stipulated in the business partnership agreement of May 1, 2016. However, as long as the plaintiff and the defendant did not sign or seal the above business agreement, it is difficult to view that the agreement between the above parties was established, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff up to the trial alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant committed a general tort against the plaintiff. Therefore, the

[In relation to the agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages against the defendant on the premise that the agreement falls under the delegation relation, and the defendant also asserts some of the claims premised on the delegation relation with the plaintiff (see, e.g., preparatory documents, etc. of the defendant on September 12, 2016). However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to jointly bear operating expenses and to share necessary roles and profits in operating the store of this case, the agreement of this case constitutes a partnership business agreement, and the legal evaluation of the agreement of this case by the parties is not bound by the court).