1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff with KRW 20 million, and Defendant B with respect thereto from February 26, 2019, and Defendant C with respect to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are both South Korea and North Korea.

B. On July 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly operated a chickens restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D,” the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the content that the Plaintiff bears the lease deposit, the Defendants shall bear the interior cost and provide the operating know-how, and the profits are to be distributed to Plaintiff 40% and the Defendants at 60% (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

[Defendant C’s agent, on March 14, 2019, acknowledged “the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to work together” through a written reply from March 14, 2019, and stated on October 15, 2019, that “the Defendant C only lent only the name, and there is no relationship with the association agreement.” Even if this is deemed to be a revocation of confession, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the confession of Defendant C is contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.”

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to operate the instant restaurant in heading F and G of the Pyeongtaek-si E building, and Defendant B concluded a lease agreement between H on July 21, 2016, stating that the said store is KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million (However, from August 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016), and the period from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to H under the instant lease agreement.

From August 2016, Defendant B performed the interior work at his own expense at the instant store.

E. On August 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that they would withdraw from the partnership agreement of this case.

The plaintiff and the defendants intended to dispose of the restaurant store of this case, but they were not disposed of.