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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells steel-frame flooring materials, solid bricks, etc. with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who sells solid bricks, etc. with the trade name of D.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant

8. On 26. 26. The main purpose of this case was to operate the factory of this case as a partnership business (hereinafter “instant partnership business”) by taking over the facilities, leases, etc. of the high-protruding-ro factory in Geumju-gu E (hereinafter “instant factory”) from F and by producing and distributing the high-protruding-ro stones after taking over the right of lease, etc.

C. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff terminated the instant club business and demanded the Defendant to compensate for damages incurred therefrom, as the Defendant disposed of goods produced in the Go-project factory at will without consultation with the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff reached the Defendant around that time.

The plaintiff from the end of April 2013 to the same year by the defendant around August 2013.

7. Until the end, the Defendant filed a complaint with an investigative agency on the charge that embezzled goods produced in the factory of this case, but the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of innocence (the Jeonju District Court 2014No800) at the court of first instance on June 10, 2015, and the prosecutor appealeds against this, but the appellate court sentenced the dismissal of the appeal on September 4, 2015 (the Jeonju District Court 2015No789) and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2015, and the main reasons for the judgment of innocence and dismissal were as follows.

① When a situation, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the instant plant by the obligees, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Plaintiff would no longer be deemed to have suffered losses due to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2013, and that the Plaintiff would no longer work together with the Plaintiff.

After that, the Defendant shared the operating expenses of the instant factory, and the Plaintiff did not bear the operating expenses of the instant factory on July 29, 2013.