1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,042,877 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2015 to October 26, 2016.

1. 기초사실 원고와 피고가 손익분배비율을 5:5로 정하여 2011. 9. 5.부터 ‘C’라는 상호로 운동기구 도소매업을 동업으로 운영해 온 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the partnership agreement, and the defendant independently operated the "C", and the defendant is obligated to pay the settlement amount upon termination to the plaintiff.

The Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff to terminate and settle the business in the middle of June 2015 and sent documents necessary for the Plaintiff to change the business from the joint business place to the sole business operator on July 10, 2015, and thus, the date of settlement following the termination of the business should be deemed as July 10, 2015.

BMW520D Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicles”) are also included in the partnership property subject to settlement.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant alleged in the grounds that they did not agree on the settlement of property due to the withdrawal of one party at the time of the partnership agreement, and the defendant does not bear the obligation

Defendant is obligated to settle the case.

Even if the Plaintiff withdraws from the partnership relationship on June 15, 2015, it is necessary to calculate as of June 15, 2015, and the instant vehicle is not the partnership property, and it is not included in the object of settlement.

3. Since the Plaintiff withdraws from the operation of “C” and the Defendant independently operated it, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share (50%) out of the partnership property at the time of withdrawal of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 719 of the Civil Act.

The facts that the Plaintiff did not work from June 15, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s completion of a bridge do not conflict between the parties, and the Plaintiff asserts that he/she received a proposal for the termination of work and the settlement of accounts from the Defendant during June 2015, and that it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the partnership agreement on July 10, 2015, and the change of the business operator on July 10, 2015.