2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Around April 5, 200, Nonparty 1, who had worked as a seafarer or captain on a fishing vessel and on the top of the vessel, was insufficient in purchasing the branch line in Japan and trying to operate the branch line in Korea. On or around June 2000, Nonparty 1, who purchased the branch line in Japan and worked as a seafarer or captain of the fishing vessel for a period of 20 years and more than 8 degrees, offered a proposal that the Defendant and Nonparty 1 would operate the business of purchasing the branch line in Japan and operating it. The Defendant and Nonparty 1, who purchased the branch line in Japan, made an investment of 70,000,000 won each, and purchased the branch line in Japan and completed the customs clearance at around July 7, 200.

The defendant and the non-party 1 did not seem to raise funds, such as expenses for repair of the above-mentioned line, and they would allow the plaintiff who was aware of the time when the defendant had been an executive of the above-mentioned line in the past to participate in the above-mentioned partnership. The defendant around July 10, 200, purchased one of the plaintiff at the time of "20,000,000 won per day" and then the plaintiff purchased 20,000,000 won per month for the business. The revenue amounting to 1/3 of the total sum of the revenues amounting to 75,00,000,000 won per day is divided equally. The plaintiff was operating the counter-party 1, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2,000 won were delivered at the expense of the defendant's horse and the non-party 1, and the non-party 2,000 won were delivered at the expense of 00,700,000 won.

At that time, registration of preservation of the ownership of the above sub-subsidiary line was made under the name of the defendant alone, but around August 23, 2000, the plaintiff made an investment, the defendant transferred 1/3 shares of the above sub-subsidiary line in the name of the non-party 2 (the non-party 1's children) and the plaintiff. The defendant and the non-party 1 received 75,000,000 won from the plaintiff and divided them into 15,00,000 won, and 3,000,000 won out of the above trade amount was brought to the non-party 1 at the expense.

After all, the non-party 1 invested 10,000,000 won as repair cost of the above-line, and the defendant invested a little amount of money (the non-party 1 claimed to be 5,000,000 won and the defendant 60,000,000 won respectively), but the plaintiff received a total of 60,000 won from the plaintiff on three occasions as repair cost (the plaintiff invested the total of 135,000,000 won, but the non-party 1 invested only 65,000,000 won, and the amount of the investment of the defendant is less than 60,000,000 won according to the non-party 1's argument, the non-party 1 paid 15,00,000 won which is less than the plaintiff on September 20, 200 to June 1, 200, but the non-party 1 paid 004,000 won to the plaintiff on the first 4,0000.

On March 6, 2002, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party 1, who operated the above vessel business as a partner of the partnership, are operated independently by the non-party 1 in the future, and agree to settle the partnership by the plaintiff and the defendant to withdraw from the partnership. The non-party 1 paid to the plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 to the defendant, approximately KRW 105,000 to the defendant, and completed the transfer of the ownership of the shares in the ship for the non-party 2, who are the children of the non-party 1.

On May 2, 2006, the defendant conspired with the non-party 1 in Busan District Court to the effect that " 20,000,000 won for the purchase of the above 20,000 won for the above 200,000 won for the purchase of the 2000,000 won for the above 00,000 won for the above 00,000 won for the purchase of the 200,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the purchase of the 10,00 won for the above 10,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the plaintiff's 20,00 won for the first time for the purchase of the 10,000 won for the above 0,000 won for the plaintiff's 7,000,00 won for the above 10,0000,00 won for the plaintiff's.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Part of purchase price of the ship

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the actual amount of 38,30,000 won, which is the amount calculated by subtracting the actual amount of purchase of a ship from 75,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff to 36,670,000 won per capita (=1,000,000 won/3) which is the amount calculated by subtracting the actual amount of purchase of a ship from 75,00,000 won paid by the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, if the defendant stated to the plaintiff that the purchase price of the connection ship of this case was KRW 120,00,000,000, the defendant and the non-party 1 did not intend to conduct the partnership business of this case while investing more than KRW 1/3 of the purchase price of the connection ship of this case in the amount of KRW 75,00,000,000, more than KRW 1/3 of the purchase price of the connection ship of this case, and did not intend to conduct the partnership business of this case, the defendant and the non-party 1 conspired to attract the plaintiff to the plaintiff for the purpose of raising the expenses for repairing the above connection ship, and the defendant suggested the partnership business of the connection ship of this case to the plaintiff and provided the plaintiff with the purchase price of the connection amount of KRW 220,000,000 per month with the business of the connection ship of this case, and divided the revenue amount of KRW 20,000 per three,000,000.

Specifically, as to the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, 30,000 won, out of the amount of 75,000,000 won paid by the Plaintiff as partner and the amount of 70,000,000 won, which was paid by Nonparty 1 at the expense of Nonparty 1, and the Plaintiff later participated in the business operation, and thus, the amount of damages is the amount of 30,000,000 won, subtracting the amount of 120,000,000 won, which was paid by the Plaintiff from the amount of 70,000 won, which was paid by the Plaintiff as partner, and the amount of 2,00,000 won, which was paid by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 9, 2006 to July 4, 2007, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

On March 6, 2002, the defendant argued that the non-party 1 did not have a duty to pay the above money because he received 120,000,000 won from the non-party 1, and the defendant completed the transfer of the share ownership for the above part of the non-party 2, who is the children of the non-party 1, as the defendant received 105,00,000 won from the non-party 1.

The plaintiff cannot be found to have agreed to settle the partnership between the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party 1, when settling the partnership relationship as above (In full view of the above recognized facts and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff seems to have known the fact that the claim for damages of this case was issued when settling the partnership relationship as above), and the plaintiff can claim damages of this case separately from the above settlement. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Part of the cost of repair of the ship

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for compensation to the plaintiff since he received 10,000,000 won from non-party 1 who is a joint investor at the cost of repair of the ship and received 60,000,000 won from the plaintiff to the non-party 1 who is a joint investor, and thereby acquired 50,000,000 won, which is the difference.

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant committed a tort by deceiving the above 50,000,000 won as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Jin Jae-hun