1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 19, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff for the settlement of a partnership relationship around February 201. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 10 million from the Defendant around March 2, 201, or received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on the basis of the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant have invested KRW 50 million in the Plaintiff’s household business; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant produced a mutual beds with the name of “D” under the Defendant’s name of “D”; (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant refused to receive the settlement of the partnership relationship after January 30, 2012; and (d) the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff at the end of February 2, 2012; and (c) the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Defendant on March 2, 2012 due to no dispute between the parties, or by taking full account of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments as a whole.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 40 million agreed to pay the Plaintiff with the settlement amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 19, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

2. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant alleged that the household store, which had been engaged in the business with the Plaintiff, was not recovered from the outstanding amount of transaction partners and closed down the business without paying national taxes, and that part of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff should be deducted. However, on February 2, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million with the amount of the Plaintiff’s investment at the end of the same business. Such circumstances asserted by the Defendant arose in the course of the operation of the said household store independently after the completion of the business relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot deduct part of the amount of the settlement as alleged by the Defendant, and the above argument by the Defendant is therefore groundless.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.