1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 925,780 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from March 31, 2016 to January 11, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff would jointly operate the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on the first floor of the building located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, with the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant partnership agreement on July 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant at that time as the settlement amount.

C. Meanwhile, on February 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000,00 for the criminal facts of embezzlement of KRW 925,780, which operated the instant restaurant as the Plaintiff and the instant restaurant as the partnership business. On February 28, 2018, the said summary order became final and conclusive on February 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. In a civil trial on the claim for embezzlement, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the criminal trial, the facts recognized in the judgment in the already established related criminal case shall be considered as a flexible evidence unless there are special circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 91Da37690 delivered on May 22, 1992). According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant embezzled 925,780 won of the cafeteria in operating the restaurant of this case as a partnership business and embezzled 925,780 won of the cafeteria of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay consolation money of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the above embezzlement by the defendant.

In general, it is not a contractual obligation.