1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with C from 2012 to 2017, and the Defendant is C’s friendship.

B. On April 2, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with D Co., Ltd., and registered business under the name of E, the Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, and operated the F Buildings and H in G “H” (hereinafter “instant store”).

C. From the beginning of 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) had been entrusted with the operation of the instant store to C’s friendship; (b) on June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the name of the instant store’s business registration.

From December 2012, the Defendant began to operate the instant store. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with the J to transfer the instant store business to KRW 115,000,000 for premium and KRW 15,000 for lease deposit, and around August 2014, the Defendant transferred the instant store business to the J.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence, Eul 1-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff merely deposited the operation of the store in this case and did not transfer the business of the store in this case to the defendant. Thus, the defendant did not have the right to dispose of the store in this case and did not dispose of it at his discretion to theJ, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return it to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that he received the instant virtual business from the plaintiff on a conclusive basis, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant obtained unjust enrichment from the proceeds received by the defendant by disposing of the instant virtual business.

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to each description of evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 10, and 11, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was acquiring the instant virtual business in a fixed manner. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① On November 8, 2013, the Defendant is the lessee between K and K, a lessor of the instant store.