1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 46,014,449 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from June 21, 2013 to July 9, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s punishment, jointly operated a photobook C, and concluded a partnership agreement with the content that the business owner shall be the Defendant and the profits shall be distributed to 50:50.

(b) the partnership of this case

On April 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively set up and operated the E points in the name of the Defendant in Cheongju-si, P points in the name of the Defendant, the H points in the name of the Defendant’s wife, and the K points in Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the E points in Cheongju-si, the name of the Defendant’s wife, around June 2007, and around May 2008.

C. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant club business as a matter of voluntary use by partners.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2-1, 2-3's evidence, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant embezzled a partner’s capital in the process of finance-related affairs, such as revenue and expenditure from the business partnership and customer management, mainly by the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around February 28, 2011, have continued to maintain the same business in relation to the production of the graduates of the year 201 and 2012, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the settlement amount for the production of the above graduates.

3) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21 million and delay damages therefrom out of the amount of embezzlement of partner accounts and the amount of settlement of the production cost of the 2011 and 2012 after graduation. (B) Determination 1) The Defendant’s statement of embezzlement claim 10-3 is merely a repetition of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant embezzled the instant partner accounts, and it is not believed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the statements in the evidence No. 10-1 and No. 2, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant for the crime of occupational embezzlement, but there is no suspicion on October 31, 2012 for lack of evidence.