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

A. On June 2002, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, C, and D entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to jointly operate the fire-fighting appliances manufacturing business (hereinafter “the instant association”) and began to operate the fire-fighting appliances manufacturing business by investing 1.25 million won each. On December 2002, C and D returned 1.250,000 won invested from the Plaintiff and withdrawn from the instant association.

B. Around December 13, 2002, the Defendant, including the Defendant’s business operation, leased a factory located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, and on December 15, 2002, after completing business registration with F and its representative as the Defendant, manufacturing of fire-fighting appliances in the above plant, etc. The Plaintiff has been working as F. From around that time.

C. On the other hand, on November 29, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the premise that the association of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been maintained around that time. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking KRW 13 million, which is the Plaintiff’s equity, out of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of deposit for lease at the present place of business KRW 26 million (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On July 6, 2012, the Incheon District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a partnership relationship at the time of filing the instant lawsuit (Dacheon District Court 2011No294807).

On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant on the basis of the claim as above, and then sought KRW 70 million equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the partnership’s property. Under the premise that the Defendant embezzled the partnership’s property, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for tort equivalent to the above KRW 70 million in subrogation of the instant association by subrogation of the principal claim for the amount of compensation. On February 19, 2014, the instant association was dissolved around December 2002, and thereafter, the Defendant alone is F.