1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 and the Defendants’ aforementioned amount from September 18, 2018:

A. Defendant B shall on July 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants: (a) entered into a partnership agreement to operate a Kapet in Vietnam (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”); (b) invested KRW 100,000,000 in each of the Defendants; and (c) invested KRW 50,000,000 in each of the Defendants; and (d) opened a Kapet, “D” in the Si of Vietnam Min Min-ho, a around August 2017.

B. On October 2017, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant partnership agreement in accordance with the agreement with the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. At the time when the Plaintiff asserted to withdraw from the instant partnership agreement, the Defendants agreed to return the amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and to pay KRW 36,000,000 in total each month from October 17, 2017 to September 17, 2018.

Although the Defendants returned the investment amount to the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not pay the remainder of KRW 32,00,000 after paying KRW 3,000,000 on October 17, 2017 and KRW 1,000 on November 1, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining agreed amount and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. After withdrawal from the instant trade agreement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants relating to the settlement of accounts with the Incheon District Court Decision 2018Gadan2423, and received a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants paid KRW 52,712,329 to the Plaintiff around September 2018, and completed settlement related to the instant trade agreement with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the settlement under the instant trade agreement has been completed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendants at the time when the plaintiff withdraws from the partnership agreement of this case, and the plaintiff.