Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant was in alliance with C, and the above C and D and E are remaining, and F are the spouse of the plaintiff's senior mother interest above E.

B. On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff opened a restaurant in the name of “H” from Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), but closed the said restaurant on November 30, 2016.

(c)

On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer the instant restaurant at KRW 180,000,000 (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”). The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000, out of the acquisition price, KRW 40,000 on October 26, 2015, and KRW 80,000 on March 30, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 80,000,00 on November 30, 2016.

(d)

From October 26, 2015 to December 11, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 152,166,859 as the acquisition price under the instant underwriting agreement.

E. On November 22, 2016, I, his wife of C, with respect to the instant restaurant, completed the registration of each business proprietor on December 1, 2016, with the date of opening business as of December 1, 2016, and F, with the date of opening business on April 27, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence No. 11-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the acquisition price under the instant underwriting agreement (i.e., KRW 180,000,000 - KRW 152,166,859) and the delayed damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant transferred the status of an underwriter under the instant underwriting agreement to F on December 11, 2016, and F was discharged from the Defendant’s obligation for the remainder of the acquisition price under the instant underwriting agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim under the premise that the Defendant is the obligor for the foregoing remainder of the obligation under the instant underwriting agreement is still without merit.