1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around March 26, 2007, the Defendant invested 250 million won in relation to the instant wedding business to Ma-dong E, who was the representative of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” (hereinafter “instant wedding”) in relation to the instant wedding business.

B. On February 13, 2008, the Plaintiff became the representative of the above wedding hall and operated the above wedding hall until October 31, 2009, as one of the investors in the instant wedding hall.

C. On the other hand, around February 2008, the Defendant drafted a partnership agreement stating that the Plaintiff, a representative of the instant wedding hall, and “the Plaintiff, as a representative of nine partners, is responsible for and manage the instant wedding hall and distributes the profits of management and the amount of deficit, excluding all expenses in the total sales, to the partner’s share.” (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 9 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The nine investors of the instant wedding hall including the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to jointly operate the instant wedding hall and share profits and losses in proportion to their investment amount in order to recover the investment amount.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract to operate the instant wedding and the instant remodeling contract on behalf of its partners, and paid 147,357,000 won for remodeling construction expenses, from March 2008 to October 31, 2009, and KRW 28,000,000 for management expenses from February 8, 2013 to October 31, 2009, respectively.

Ultimately, since the plaintiff paid the defendant's share of expenses under the contract of the same business in this case, the defendant has a duty to compensate for it, and even if not, the defendant has agreed to share of losses at the time of the contract of the same business in this case as well as the obligation to settle the expenses due to the termination of the contract of the same business.

Therefore, the defendant paid to the plaintiff.