1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 481,464,849 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from July 3, 2012 to July 24, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant operated the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. The Plaintiff participated as the partner of the instant hospital in 2007, and paid a total of KRW 260 million to the Defendant under the pretext of investment, etc.

C. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s business relationship with the instant hospital continued until February 20, 2012. During that period, the instant hospital purchased CT and MIR under the name of the Defendant, and the deposit and the lease fee, which are the purchase cost, were to be appropriated as the profit accrued from the operation of the instant hospital.

In the sales generated from the operation of the hospital of this case, the source of the revenue computed by deducting various expenses, including the above deposit and rent, and the defendant brought half.

E. The amount of taxes generated from the operation of the instant hospital was appropriated for the hospital’s operating income. Of the taxes generated from the business during the said business period, global income taxes and local income taxes that the Defendant solely assumed are KRW 438,636,002.

F. At the time of the termination of the foregoing partnership, the Defendant paid KRW 111,891,31 to the Plaintiff, separately from the amount of KRW 172,00,000,000, which was returned by the lessee company.

G. The market price of the CT purchased by the instant hospital is KRW 337,760,428 as of February 20, 2012.

MI purchased by the instant hospital is KRW 277,50,000, the lease term is KRW 48 months from November 28, 2008 to November 23, 2012, and the market price at the time of February 20, 2012 is KRW 512,187,500.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 through 9, 4, 5, 15, 17, and 26 Evidence (including each number), appraiser E’s market price appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. On February 20, 2012, since the source of the operation of the hospital in this case and the defendant's partnership relationship were terminated as of February 20, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant bear the obligation to settle the accounts accordingly.

The plaintiff, the defendant would bring half of the earnings of the hospital in this case.