1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) KRW 21,934,300 and this shall be from March 10, 2018 to April 10, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. It is unclear whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant together with D, etc. had several parties to the first business partnership agreement.

However, around May 2017, the Agreement on the Trade of this case was maintained between the plaintiff, defendant, and D, and there is no dispute between the parties.

around January 2017, the Defendant invested each investment deposit and the head office down payment, etc., and decided to operate a breeding business in the second floor of 108.65 square meters of underground floors of buildings listed in the attached Table owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant second floor”) and the second floor of 2,472 square meters of Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant trade agreement”). (b)

Pursuant to the instant club business contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. were running the business, such as installing the plastic houses listed in the order of Paragraph (2) on the ground of the instant land, and raising the ears, respectively, on the ground of the instant land.

C. Meanwhile, as a matter of course of business under the instant trade agreement, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D drafted a letter of intent as follows around May 10, 2017:

(B) In the following, “A” and “B” refer to the Defendant; hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) FEC

D. The instant partnership agreement was maintained between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that D withdraw from the partnership relationship and finally became final.

E. Around December 26, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of a partnership agreement that the agreement will be terminated on the grounds that D’s withdrawal from the partnership and fall into mutual trust relationship.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for the payment of settlement balance

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the following amount to the Defendant upon the termination of the instant partnership agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff’s argument is examined in turn.

1. 9,156,150 won for the purchase of the commodities and lines necessary for the raising of earba, 9-9.