1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed for registration of credit business with the trade name “C”. The Plaintiff completed registration of credit business at the time of Jinju.

B. On November 2005, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff engaged in the same loan business with the Defendant from around November 2005. The method was ① to transfer part of the principal of the loan to the Defendant’s account when the Plaintiff was requested for a loan from the borrower, and to the borrower the remainder of the principal of the loan at the Defendant’s expense. However, when the Defendant received the principal and interest from the borrower, the Plaintiff transferred the principal and interest calculated at the ratio of the principal and interest borne by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s account as the Plaintiff’s wife.

C. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the settlement amount following the termination of the partnership relationship (the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch Branch 2016Gahap10936). On July 20, 2017, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion can be seen as a claim for distribution of residual property following the termination of partnership relationship. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not reveal that the Defendant’s residual property owned exceeds the Defendant’s ratio of distribution of residual property, and that the association remains remaining remaining after the remaining business of the association. (2) The Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed [the Busan High Court 2017Na2226], and the above appellate court, on December 7, 2017, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, has the Defendant’s residual property.

It is difficult to readily conclude that there exists a settlement amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Rather, it is possible for the Plaintiff to hold the residual property of the association, and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the details of remittance of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed as an investment for the same business. This was finalized on December 29, 2017

(hereinafter referred to as “pre-appeal”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each statement, pleading.