1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was designated as a safety inspection institution by the Minister of Public Safety and Security on January 2014 pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Safety Control of Children’s Amusement Facilities.

B. The Plaintiff completed business registration with the trade name B around September 6, 2013.

C. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant entered into a business total sales agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the term of contract set at two years with respect to the safety inspection business for children’s play facilities (hereinafter “instant business”). If the Defendant, with respect to B’s business activities, by employing the said business, (i) securing the list and contact details of the managing body of children’s play facilities, and (ii) soliciting the managing body to enter into a safety inspection contract for children’s play facilities with the Defendant and children, then the Defendant entered into the business sales agreement with the intent to pay the fees to B according to the specified standard monthly (hereinafter “instant contract”). At the bottom of the contract, the name and name of the Plaintiff and C were written as the representative director, and C’s seal was affixed thereon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. According to the instant contract with the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the fee equivalent to 20% of the total sales of the instant business, and only the fee is paid from December 2, 2014 to November 2014, and the fee is not paid from February 2, 2016 to February 2016, which is the expiration of the instant contract term. As such, the Plaintiff seek for payment of KRW 250 million to the Defendant as part of the fee unpaid from December 2, 2014 to February 2016, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1’s assertion 1) Since the parties to the instant contract are not the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim payment of fees under the instant contract. 2) Even if the Plaintiff is a party to the instant contract, the instant contract was concluded around November 2014, and the Defendant agreed upon according to the terms and conditions at the time.