1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,894,342 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 3, 2016 to March 29, 2017, and the following.

1. Presumed facts

A. The husband of the plaintiff and the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant, are relatives.

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to jointly conduct the PC (hereinafter “instant business”) business in Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “the instant business”) and agreed to have the Plaintiff’s business shares at 20% and the Defendant’s business shares at 80% (hereinafter “instant business agreement”), and the Plaintiff invested KRW 65 million for the instant business agreement.

B. However, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the instant partnership agreement to the Defendant through C around March 2015, which was difficult to operate the instant business.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. First of all, we examine the nature of the termination of the instant partnership agreement, as to the nature of termination of the instant partnership agreement.

Although the instant partnership agreement was terminated at the end of March 2015, the Plaintiff is merely able to request dissolution of a partnership, withdraw from a partnership, or remove other union members in the partnership agreement, such as the partnership agreement, or not to cancel or terminate the partnership agreement as in the general contract, and not to bear the obligation of restitution from the other party.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29714 Decided June 11, 2015). Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff filed a claim for dissolution of an association, and whether the Plaintiff withdrawn from the association.

After the completion of the instant agreement, the Defendant decided to own the PC lease deposit and facilities, etc., and even if the association is dissolved, the association’s property continues to be jointly owned by the union members and exists until the completion of liquidation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da28075, Oct. 9, 192). The Defendant did not consult with the Plaintiff regarding the disposal of the PC bank facilities, which are the partnership property, after the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the partnership agreement.