1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 15.9 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 4, 2017 to January 9, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant invested half of the 5th floor “D” located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju in order to operate a business partnership, and the business registration certificate was decided to be in the name of the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 4.1 million for the premium of KRW 4.1 million and KRW 10 million for the premium of KRW 1.8 million according to the business agreement with the Defendant, and paid KRW 1.8 million for the signboard expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the part of the claim for settlement of accounts was unilaterally reversed from the Defendant, and that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was two members under the partnership agreement, and thus, either party cannot be expelled. However, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the agreement was destroyed due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant, which led to the reversal of the agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is examined as a claim for dissolution of the partnership and settlement money.

Article 720 of the Civil Act provides that each partner may demand dissolution of the partnership in extenuating circumstances. "U.S. unavoidable reasons" refers to cases where there are objective circumstances deemed to be extremely difficult to achieve the objectives of the partnership due to the aggravation of the status of the partnership or the aggravation of its business due to changes in the circumstances of the economic community, or where it is impossible to expect smooth operation of the partnership business due to the destruction of trust relationship due to the deterioration of trust relationship

In light of the above legal principles, considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to this case’s health class, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 11, and 12, the trust relationship was destroyed due to the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant who are the party to the association, and thus, it seems that the smooth operation of the association’s business cannot be expected. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant’s business relationship is dissolved.

(b).