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

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The primary Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed to return KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff thereafter. The primary Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of the Defendant’s agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, there is no reason to deem it differently.

B. The conjunctive plaintiff asserts that the defendant should return the plaintiff's contribution to the plaintiff, in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 98Da54458 delivered on March 12, 199, since the above partnership relationship with the conjunctive defendant was immediately set up before the joint operation was set up, and operated independently by the defendant.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, not only jointly operated “D” until June 30, 2013, but also recognized that the Plaintiff was paid money from the Defendant as wages until around that time. As such, the foregoing assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that since he withdraws from the partnership relationship on June 30, 2013, the plaintiff should receive 40,000,000 won equivalent to 4/10 of the plaintiff's share of 10,000,000 won, which is the union property at the time of withdrawal from the defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the partnership property around June 30, 2013, which was at the time of withdrawal, was KRW 100,000,00,000, and instead, if we look at the whole purport of the pleading in each of the descriptions of subparagraphs 1 through 3, 5-1, and 2, the above union property at the time of withdrawal, as it is recognized that the above union property at the time of withdrawal was in excess of its obligation, cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.