1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 4,964,862 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 1, 2014 to November 28, 2017.

1. The premise for the determination

A. On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) under which they jointly carry on a business, such as a general timber household wholesale business (hereinafter “instant partnership business”), and thereafter, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the effect that the instant partnership agreement is terminated on April 2014 and the Defendant is liable for settlement as liquidator.

Based on such settlement relationship, the Plaintiff asserted that additional investments or expenses were made in comparison with the Defendant and sought payment of KRW 26,982,230 corresponding to the 1/2.

On the contrary, the defendant asserts that the damage was incurred in the partnership business of this case, and sought payment of KRW 32,905,089 corresponding to 1/2 of the loss to the plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, in relation to the instant trade agreement, the same trade agreement (Evidence A 1) as a disposal document was prepared.

In the event that a disposition document exists, barring special circumstances where the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document are clear and acceptable, the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the contents of the document shall be recognized, and it shall not be rejected without any reasonable reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). Although the defendant asserted that the above contract was formally prepared, it is judged that the defendant did not prove any special circumstances acceptable to recognize it (as alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to view that the fact that only the plaintiff invested funds exceeding KRW 50 million for five months after the contract of the same case constitutes a special circumstance to dismiss the contents of the same contract, which is a disposition document). Accordingly, the settlement following the cancellation of the contract of this case should also be conducted based on the above contract of the same case.