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

A. The Plaintiff worked as Hdddrner at the beauty art room of “D” located in Busan Shipping Daegu, while being registered as the proprietor of “E” cosmetic located in the same Gu from June 19, 2015 to June 19, 2015 (hereinafter “the beauty art room of this case”), and was appointed as the president and hdrner in the beauty art room of this case, and the Defendant was in charge of the accounting of the beauty art room of this case.

B. In relation to the operation of the cosmetic, F Co., Ltd. was established on August 4, 2015 for the purpose of beauty business and NAE business, etc., and the Defendant, as the representative director, was registered respectively by the Plaintiff as an internal director.

C. The beauty art room of this case was operated for about two years, and was reported on August 1, 2017, and currently operated by the Defendant with the trade name “G” at the same place.

On the other hand, although the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for occupational embezzlement and fraud, the Busan District Prosecutors' Office received a disposition of false accusation on November 29, 2017 on the ground that "it is insufficient to acknowledge the business relationship, even if there is lack of evidence to acknowledge the business relationship, there is no evidence to prove the facts alleged by the plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove the crime of occupational embezzlement by taking into account the following: (a) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the crime of occupational embezzlement; and (b) even if the plaintiff's assertion is made, it is unclear that the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff in any point; (c) there is no injury of the plaintiff due to the change of the tenant's name; and (d) the defendant deposited the lease deposit with the plaintiff in repayment of KRW 5 million, lack of evidence to prove the crime of fraud."

E. The Defendant also filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of interfering with the Plaintiff’s business or occupational embezzlement, but the Dong District Prosecutors’ Office in Busan District Prosecutors’ Office is presumed to have existed in the partnership business relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 6, 2017. The Defendant on November 2016.