Defendant B shall pay 50,00,000 won to the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from October 8, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private capital);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants jointly run the Plaintiff’s instant business establishment D located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant business establishment”). The Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the purport that the return on profit is divided into 40%, 20%, and 40%, and the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff earnings under the said business agreement, even though they operated the instant business establishment in accordance with the said business agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million among the proceeds equivalent to the Plaintiff’s profit rate of KRW 40% from April 19, 2019 to August 30, 2019, equivalent to KRW 198,210,000 of the operating income of the instant workplace from April 19, 201 to August 30, 201.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant business establishment was entered into with the Defendants on the premise that the agreement was entered into with respect to the instant business establishment, and according to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s business share agreement with the Defendants, first of all, was entered into (hereinafter “instant business share agreement”), and (i) Defendant B registered the instant business establishment on April 1, 2016 and operated the said business establishment around that time; and (ii) the Plaintiff and the Defendants, on November 9, 2018, determined the share ratio of the instant business establishment to Defendant C40, Plaintiff 40, and Defendant B20%” (hereinafter “instant business share agreement”).

Although it can be recognized that the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the "business agreement" between the plaintiff and the defendants to operate the business of this case jointly and to have the profits accrued therefrom, as alleged by the plaintiff, has been concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4, 7, 8 to.