1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 12,00,000 in the amount of value-added tax reduction of KRW 84,500,000 for store premium of KRW 103,500,000 as settlement money following the completion of the partnership relationship with the Defendant. The first instance court partly accepted the payment and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff appealed against the amount of KRW 62,00,000 for the store premium of KRW 60,000 for the settlement money of KRW 60,000 for the settlement money of KRW 2,00,000 for the settlement money of KRW 62,00 for the settlement money.

2. The parties' assertion

A. From June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to operate a mobile phone store located in J, J (hereinafter “instant mobile phone store”) located in J, J (hereinafter “instant mobile phone store”) as the Defendant and the Defendant’s Dong business at the same time, setting the ratio of shares of 5:5. On September 30, 2017, the business relationship with the Defendant was terminated.

With the plaintiff's business ability and effort, the mobile phone store's mobile phone sales amounting to 120,000,000 won at the time of the termination of the business relationship, and the amount deducted from the settlement of accounts (benefit) in September 2017 includes 4,00,000 won of the signboard installation cost paid by the defendant after the termination of the business relationship.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,000,000 equivalent to 50% of the share ratio of KRW 120,000,000 for the premium on a mobile phone store with the settlement money following the termination of the business relationship, and the amount of unpaid settlement on September 2017 equivalent to 50% of the cost of installing the signboard, together with KRW 62,00,000 for the total amount of KRW 62,00,000 for the premium on the mobile phone store and the delay damages.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion did not conclude a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, but agreed to pay piece rates according to sales performance by employing the Plaintiff as business employees.

Although the Defendant paid 40% or 50% of the Plaintiff’s sales to the Plaintiff as wages, the Plaintiff paid 50% of the net profit of the entire sales floor from May 2017 to the Plaintiff as wages due to the occurrence of more income than the Defendant. The Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff.