1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of “S85” under Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such,

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Claim for Proceeds) that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff any proceeds from December 2012 to June 30, 2013. As such, the Defendant shall pay KRW 15,329,29,290, out of the proceeds of the Dong’s business during the pertinent period, KRW 1/2,7,664,645, out of the proceeds of the Dong’s business during the pertinent period.

(Request for Settlement of Accounts) Since the Dong company of this case terminated on June 30, 2013, the defendant paid 247,50,000 won (=495,000,000 won/2) for the settlement of accounts of the machinery of this case as of the above point of time to the plaintiff (=10,000,000 won/2), 5,000 won for lease deposit (i.e., 10,000,000 won/2), 34,794,545 won for property owned (such as vehicle transport equipment and fixtures) (=2,80,000 won for vehicle transport equipment)/2), business goodwill 16,00,000,00 won (=32,000,000,000 won/2), 108,405,000 won for lease equipment deposit (i.e., settlement of accounts).

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the facts stated in the evidence No. 4 as to the claim for earnings and the following circumstances, namely, that the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid considerable profits to the Plaintiff while running the partnership business, the Defendant’s failure to pay profits entirely while running the partnership business of the instant case seems to have expanded the amount of expenses by employing new employees, etc. from the Defendant’s retirement to June 30, 2013, and the amount of KRW 15,329,290 was generated from the profits of the instant Dong business from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the profits from the partnership business of the instant business entity from the profits of the instant business entity have occurred at least in excess of the above amount. Accordingly, the Defendant is deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff at least in excess of the above amount.