1. On November 11, 2016 to February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 24.6 million to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to operate a restaurant on September 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) leased the store located in the Cheongju-gu Office C; (b) paid the lessor a deposit amount of KRW 50 million, premium of KRW 20 million; (c) around September 21, 2015, the Defendant: (d) paid the Plaintiff a deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the lessor (e.g., refund from the Defendant after the Plaintiff’s substitute payment of KRW 5 million); and (e) around September 21, 2015, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the interior works and the purchase of office fixtures of the said store; and (c) provided that the Defendant’s passbook deposited in KRW 35 million is

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 72 million to the Defendant, which was borrowed from D around October 7, 2015, to operate the restaurant while taking charge of business preparation affairs, such as the interior construction of the restaurant.

Around November 2015, when D was under dispute with the Defendant’s husband E and collected the funds, the Plaintiff re-paid a total of KRW 70 million to the Defendant through the wife.

C. On October 10, 2015, after completing business registration with the trade name of “F cafeteria,” the Defendant opened a restaurant with “G” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). Upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from H Co., Ltd. as alcoholic beverage loans around November 16, 2015, and thereafter repaid all of the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 7, 8, Eul 1, 2, each entry (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant operated the instant restaurant as a partnership business, but the Defendant did not perform its duty to settle accounts and withdraws from the partnership business relationship by serving a written complaint of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remaining balance of the Plaintiff’s share in the business property.

In order to operate the restaurant of this case, the Plaintiff invested KRW 72 million, the Defendant invested KRW 120 million, and the Plaintiff’s share in the Plaintiff’s investment constitutes approximately KRW 40 per cent. Thus, the Plaintiff’s investment property.