1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from October 1, 2017 to September 20, 2018.

1. Basic facts concerning the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. Defendant B was employed as an instructor on February 13, 2009, and Defendant C as of December 3, 2009, respectively.

B. From August 14, 2014, the Defendants worked in the “Corporation Dsannam Branch” (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) and at the time, the Plaintiff was the representative on the pertinent private teaching institute’s business registration certificate.

C. On January 2, 2017, the operating form of the instant private teaching institute was changed to a personal business operator (hereinafter “E”), and the representative on the business registration certificate was changed to the Defendants.

Since then, the trade name of the instant private teaching institute was changed to F on September 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including all types of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants were in a partnership relationship with respect to the instant private teaching institute. The Plaintiff withdrawn from the partnership relationship around August 2017 and agreed to jointly and severally return the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2017. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the said settlement amount of KRW 60 million and the damages for delay calculated from October 1, 2017.

B. At least, around January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were in a partnership business relationship with respect to the operation of the instant private teaching institute (the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 4:3:3) and there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff left the partnership business relationship around August 2017.

Furthermore, facts without dispute, Gap 6 and 10 evidence, testimony of witness G, and the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the order to submit a report to H against the stock company, i.e., the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments, i.e., the general staff of the instant private teaching institute, if the defendants paid the premium to the plaintiff.