지분등
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion from March 6, 2003: (a) determined the profit distribution ratio of the Defendant and metal manufacturing business as one; and (b) withdrawn from the above partnership on February 28, 2015; (c) the Defendant received more than KRW 217,953,853, and the assets under the above partnership remain at KRW 57,81,029; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff 80,036,412 won [217,953,853 won - 57,81,029 won x 0.5] equivalent to 50% of the amount excluding the balance of the partner accounts among the excess amount received in the settlement of profits.
B. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to conduct a joint business on March 6, 2003: 1: it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to conduct a joint business on March 6, 2003. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received more than 217,953,853 won out of the amount of settlement of profits, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for a principal lawsuit is without merit.
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff embezzled the Defendant’s share of KRW 84,778,80, and KRW 22,162,150, and KRW 10,825,050 received from the D Company, and KRW 29,771,850, and KRW 41,00,000, which are paid from the E Company. As such, the Defendant sought the return of KRW 147,537,850, which is a part of the Plaintiff’s share of the share of the share of the sales of the share of the share of the sales of the share of the share of the sales of the share of the share of the Defendant.
B. Each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including paper numbers) alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff embezzleds the details claimed by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, according to the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the Defendant issued a disposition of non-guilty on July 30, 2015 in the case where the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of occupational embezzlement with the content as alleged above. Thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s counterclaim.
3. Conclusion.