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

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to provide funds and to divide profits from exporting goods to China with its funds.

Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the instant partnership agreement to the Plaintiff of the Defendant Company.

On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,470,020,020, such as the price of goods, to the Defendant Company according to the instant trade agreement.

The defendant company purchased goods with the above money and exported them to China, and E in China performed import clearance duties in China, and supplied the said goods to F in China.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the purport of Gap evidence, Eul evidence, Eul's testimony, and the whole argument as to the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument that the plaintiff concluded the partnership agreement of this case in the situation where the defendant D's father's claim amounting to 60 million won was held. Article 2 of the partnership agreement of this case agreed that the defendant company will be responsible for the recovery of funds in China.

In light of these circumstances, apart from dividing profits, the Defendants should be deemed to have agreed to guarantee the Plaintiff’s investment principal.

Therefore, the defendants must return the plaintiff's investment principal of KRW 60,470,000.

However, according to the statement of evidence No. 4 and witness G testimony, it is recognized that the representative of Plaintiff H had a claim amounting to KRW 60 million against G at the time of entering into the instant partnership agreement, but such fact alone is difficult to deem that the Defendants agreed to guarantee the Plaintiff’s investment principal separately from the settlement of profits sharing under the instant partnership agreement, and there is no assertion or proof that the Defendants did not have a reason to return the investment principal to the Plaintiff in the circumstance where no profits have accrued.

Rather, each testimony of witness E and G is presented.