1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant engaged in the household sales business with the trade name C on January 5, 2010.

The Plaintiff invested KRW 97,170,000, including the design right equivalent to KRW 10,000,000, and the Defendant invested KRW 51,201,902.

On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to liquidate a partnership relationship, and the Defendant agreed to return 87,170,000 won calculated by subtracting 10,000 won of the design right from the Plaintiff’s investment amount.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 87,170,000 and damages for delay.

2. Although the fact that the Plaintiff’s investment amounted to 87,170,000 is not disputed between the parties, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s investment amounting to 87,170,000 won, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed at the time of the business partnership agreement that "joint repayment shall be made at the time of loss of investment (in the event of loss of foreign sales, joint repayment shall be made by the plaintiff and the defendant)" and "one-half of the total amount of investment at the time of the disposition of the company (division)," and that the plaintiff was paid KRW 48,860,000 from September to November 2013, 2012, after the plaintiff agreed to liquidate the business partnership, as the name of the return of investment money from the defendant, and the fact that the household inventory and the claim for attempted money of the household store operated by the defendant under the business partnership were exceeded all of the plaintiff in the course of arranging the business partnership is recognized as only without dispute between the parties.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is understood as a return of investment in accordance with the settlement of the partnership relationship, the plaintiff at least should assert and prove the value of the partnership business property at the time of the liquidation of the partnership relationship. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the inquiry results cannot be confirmed only.

Therefore, any mother or the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3.