1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim for exchange change and a claim for selective additions in this Court.

1. On December 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant and Nonparty C agreed to operate a store selling adult products in the trade name of “E”, which was operated by the Defendant in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, as a partnership (hereinafter “D store”); (b) at the time, the Plaintiff assessed the value of the said D store as KRW 90,000,000, and (c) decided to contribute KRW 1/3,000 to the Defendant as a partner’s payment.

In addition, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and C agreed to establish an additional adult product sales store (hereinafter “F store”) in Busan-gu Busan-do, and the Plaintiff bears the lease deposit, etc. of the F store, and the Defendant and C agreed to invest KRW 10 million in the purchase price of the goods sold at the F store, but they borrowed KRW 10 million each from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, on December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant (i.e., a loan of KRW 30 million to the Defendant regarding the investment in the F Stores amounting to KRW 10 million).

In accordance with the agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant did not disclose to the plaintiff the lease contract, inventory status, monthly income, details of expenditure, etc. on D stores.

The above business agreement is null and void as it does not meet the requirements for establishment of an association which shall operate joint business among its partners. Even if not, the Plaintiff cancels the above business agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek payment of KRW 50 million and damages for delay against the Defendant on the ground of the return of unjust enrichment or the partner’s money.

(A) Of the Plaintiff’s request, the part concerning the investment in the F store amounting to KRW 20 million shall be deemed to include a request for the return of the loan. 2.

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and Eul evidence No. 2: