The claim of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) that was changed in exchange in this Court is dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2019, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointor C, and the Defendant agreed to open a certified brokerage office in the name of the Defendant and operate it as a partnership business and settle profits according to the ratio of the amount of investment (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

The plaintiff (the appointed party) and the appointed party C invested 5 million won in each trade deposit, and the defendant invested 10 million won in each trade deposit.

B. On March 19, 2019, according to the instant business agreement, the Defendant: (a) registered the F Authorized Brokerage Office (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”); and (b) reported C, who is not qualified as a certified brokerage agent, as a brokerage assistant of the said brokerage office, as a broker assistant of the said brokerage office.

(c)

The amount of KRW 10 million out of the total amount of KRW 20 million invested by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, and the Defendant was used as the sublease deposit for the instant brokerage office, and the remainder of KRW 10 million was used as the office facility expenses and operating funds.

(d)

Around May 2019, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointor C, and the Defendant decided to de facto terminate the partnership relationship due to the conflict of opinions regarding the operation of the instant brokerage office. The Defendant reported the closure of the instant brokerage office on September 30, 2019.

E. The defendant suffered damage to the defendant by acquiring real estate brokerage fees on behalf of the defendant during the period of the Dong business of this case or by preparing a sales contract in the name of another office other than the brokerage office of this case.

C filed a complaint with embezzlement and breach of trust, but C was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor's office of Suwon District Court on December 31, 2019 (insufficient evidence).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant alleged by the plaintiff (the appointed party) ① After the conflict of opinions regarding the operation of the brokerage office of this case, the plaintiff (the appointed party) and the appointed party C are involved in the brokerage office of this case.