1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From around October 2011, the Plaintiff registered his/her mobile phone sales business under the name of his/her wife E in the first floor No. 2, Sungwon-si, Changwon-si, Sungwon-si.

B. On October 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to divide sales proceeds by running the mobile phone sales business together (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

Accordingly, after the Defendant leased the above D Prize No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant integrated the above D Prize No. 1 and No. 2 as one of the first floor No. 1 and 2, and used them as a sales store (hereinafter “instant sales store”), and operated the mobile phone sales business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred the instant sales store to F on January 2016 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the relationship of partnership with the Plaintiff. During the period of the partnership, the Plaintiff and the instant sales store came into existence at KRW 206,555,660.

피고는 원고에게 이 사건 동업약정에 따라 손실의 1/2을 부담할 의무가 있으므로, 원고들은 일부청구로서 손익분배비율 1/2에 해당하는 103,277,830원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금의 지급을 구한다.

(2) On July 1, 2014, the Defendant terminated the partnership agreement according to the Plaintiff’s proposal, and thereafter, the Plaintiff independently operates the partnership agreement, but the Plaintiff paid 1.5 million won to the Defendant each month’s monthly rent, and agreed that D’s monthly rent shall be borne by the Defendant, and more than half of the premium shall be paid at each sales store’s disposal.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for the settlement of accounts is without merit, since it is only required to return the amount corresponding to the plaintiff's share from the union property as at July 1, 2014.

Even if the period of partnership business between the Plaintiff and the Defendant until January 2016, the loss at the time of termination of partnership relations.