A. On February 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership business agreement with the Plaintiff to invest KRW 80 million in the above lease deposit and divide profits while operating the party hall. The Defendant received KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff. At that time, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the agent E of the owner of the building at the first floor office of the building located in Yangsan-si and entered into the lease agreement for the store to be used as the party hall, and then, it is recognized that the Defendant entered into the lease agreement with the agent E of the owner of the building at the first floor office of the building located in Yangsan-si, and formed the lease agreement for the store to be used as the party hall as the lease deposit and embezzled the amount of KRW 60 million out of the partner deposit for personal use from the return of KRW 50 million out of the above lease deposit from the Plaintiff after the after the death of the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for personal purposes

According to the above facts, the defendant shall be deemed to have inflicted damage on the plaintiff by embezzlement of KRW 50 million out of the plaintiff's investment proceeds in his/her occupational custody by arbitrarily using the amount of KRW 50 million. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages therefor.

(1) In the form of a claim for damages against the Defendant who committed a tort, the Defendant’s share in the partnership business cannot be recognized, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s claim for distribution of remaining property after the termination of the partnership business relationship, as it appears that there was no money invested by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against the Defendant in full. On May 16, 2012, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff and completed the settlement of embezzlement by transferring the party room business corresponding to the Defendant’s share to the Plaintiff; (b) however, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant invested KRW 80 million in the Plaintiff.