1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 15,00,000, and shall pay the full amount from February 5, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s representative director C and Defendant husband D entered into a partnership agreement with each other to mutually operate a surface disposal business and distribute profits to 5:5, and the Plaintiff, a stock company, was established pursuant to the said partnership agreement.

B. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant as stated in the separate agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and signed a deed signed by a notary public as to the instant agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015 and 497, Sept. 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant deed signed by a private person”).

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in a monetary transaction relationship between D and the Plaintiff’s representative director, who is the Defendant husband, for the same business, and from January 2014, the Plaintiff Company had attempted to work as the Plaintiff Company.

However, even though the Defendant did not have worked for the Plaintiff Company at all, he entered false matters as if he had worked on January 2014, and came to know that the money brought to the name of salary would amount to 101,903,390 won, thereby preventing D from going to the Company. Furthermore, the Defendant did not confirm the contents of D’s request and made a deed signed by a private person with respect to the instant agreement.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the instant agreement is not consistent with the factual relations, and thus there is no substantial debt relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the existence of the obligation, such as the purport of the principal claim, against the Defendant.

B. According to the Defendant’s arguments, the Defendant’s husband D also received benefits of the same content as that of the Plaintiff’s representative director C from January 2014. However, since D had worked in another company located in his/her own seat, it is paid benefits under the Defendant’s name.

After that, when terminating the partnership relationship for several reasons, D completes the work of the Plaintiff Company by March 25, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are D.