1. The lawsuit claiming investment among the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly opened and operated the “D store” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant store”) at the rate of 50:50, and entered into a partnership agreement, which stipulates that the required expenses shall be borne at the rate of 373,364,430, and the expenses shall be borne at the rate of 50:50, if profits accrue after settling accounts as of the end of each month.

B. On December 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the single contract is named in the name of the Defendant E, but there is no dispute between the parties to the contract and the Defendant) and F have acquired the shares of 10% (each of the KRW 40 million) from the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and enter into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to jointly operate the instant store by setting the shares of 35%, Defendant 35%, and F30%.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 363,205,967 won in total for the expenses actually incurred in the opening and operation of the store of this case, and 1/2 of the investments that the plaintiff and the defendant should have actually borne by 181,602,983 won in each of the 1/2 of them. The amount actually invested by the plaintiff is 202,962,212 won in total, and the amount actually paid by the defendant is 160,243,755 won in total. The defendant is obligated to pay 21,359,229 won in unjust enrichment and damages for delay since he gains profits from the plaintiff's property without any legal ground, and thereby causes losses to the plaintiff. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff, the defendant and the F with the amount of investments equivalent to the above amount.

The plaintiff filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 21,359,229 in the application form for the amendment of the claim while claiming KRW 77,70,000 in the complaint, and the plaintiff did not explicitly withdraw the cause of the claim. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is deemed to have been selectively asserted within the scope of KRW 21,359,229.

In regard to this, the defendant shall submit the settlement data of the D sales outlet at the time of opening the business.