1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written consent to the agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) on July 18, 2008, as follows, do not conflict between the parties, and the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 15.6 million from the Defendant by December 16, 2008 are the parties.

Article 2 (Contents of Agreement) The Plaintiff waives all rights to the operation of the CFF on July 18, 2008, and the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 92 million, including the remainder of KRW 32 million, excluding KRW 18 million, out of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was deposited by the Plaintiff under the name of facilities and brand usage fees invested by the Plaintiff.

Article 3 (Payment of Price) The defendant shall transfer KRW 92 million to the plaintiff from July 19, 2008 to July 19, 2008.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 76.4 million (= KRW 92 million - KRW 15.6 million) and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The Plaintiff’s defense claim is a commercial claim and five years have passed since the statute of limitations expired.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a commercial claim.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff invested KRW 60 million in the lease deposit and KRW 50 million in facilities and brand usage fees, and operated the fish farming institute in collaboration with the defendant. The plaintiff, who is the operator of the fish farming institute in this case, was entitled to receive the above investment from the defendant as the operator of the fish farming institute in this case, and prepared the agreement of this case.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim is a claim arising from the formation of the instant agreement with the Defendant, the merchant, based on an investment contract that constitutes commercial activities, and thus constitutes commercial claims.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s investment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is based on the Plaintiff’s non-experience or the Plaintiff’s affiliation to the Defendant.