1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff (1) 15,750,000 won, and (2) 1

1. Basic facts

A. In November 201, the Defendant agreed to operate the said restaurant and receive benefits from the Defendant when the Defendant started the cafeteria.

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s money by asserting that the Plaintiff was in a partnership relationship with the Defendant.

However, on August 11, 2016, the Defendant received a non-prosecution disposition regarding the suspected embezzlement.

C. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2015 Congress 93699, but was dismissed on November 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 201, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to operate a restaurant together and distribute profits equally, and from around the 25th day of the same month, the Plaintiff operated the restaurant with the name “E” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

Business registration of the above restaurant was made in the name of the plaintiff.

B. In the first place, the Defendant, after the lapse of time, did not go to the restaurant, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the restaurant work in most of the cafeterias.

C. Upon the completion of daily work, the Plaintiff deposited revenues in the bank account under the name of the Defendant’s management (hereinafter “instant account”). D.

The Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 81,802,50 from November 13, 2011 to June 12, 2014 to the lender as the funds for restaurant operation.

E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around December 2012, operated a restaurant by changing the trade name of the restaurant to “F”, and opened and operated a new restaurant with the trade name “H” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around June 2013.

F. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff closed a restaurant and finished the partnership with the Defendant.

The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to distribute the proceeds, but the Defendant believed that there was no revenue.

(g)...