1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 6, 2015 to May 28, 2015, the Defendant operated a store in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “D” as a trade name, selling sports paintings, etc. (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant terminated the instant partnership agreement, and prepared a partnership contract setting forth the grounds for termination and the terms and conditions of agreement, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for termination”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of the evidence Nos. 3 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages, as he committed the following illegal acts while operating the store of this case as a partnership business or failed to meet the obligations under the agreement of the partnership business.

① The Defendant embezzled KRW 100,200,50,000 in total for the period of the instant business by receiving the sales proceeds of the instant store customers into the Defendant’s personal account or transferring the money of the sales store’s account to the Defendant’s personal account as stated in the instant contract for termination of the business.

② During the period of the same business, the Defendant opened a new post with the name “F” in Mapo-gu Seoul, and operated a separate drinking house, and failed to perform its obligations under the instant sales contract by failing to properly manage the store of this case. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered business loss due to a decline in credit rating, loss of mass refund, etc.

③ The Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff under the pretext of a loan, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000.

④ A business partnership agreement with the Defendant began on September 2014, and the Defendant embezzled the inventory of the instant burial from October 2, 2014 to February 2, 2015, in collusion with the Defendant’s drinking house employees, etc. to keep it in the drinking house operated by the Defendant, and provide it to the drinking house customers, etc. without the Plaintiff’s consent.

(However, the plaintiff asserts that it is a breach of trust.3.