1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and Ulsan-gun C should operate a small-scale early house with the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff shall each bear 1/2 of the total rent deposit amounting to KRW 50 million and the cost of purchasing equipment necessary therefor, and the Defendant agreed to pay 300,000,000 won per month to the Plaintiff with the profit distribution amount.

In accordance with the agreement to operate the business, the plaintiff on April 22, 2015 to the defendant.

4. 26. The Defendant and the Defendant paid a total of KRW 26 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s words D as investment.

On May 8, 2015, the Defendant opened a restaurant with the name of “E”, and on June 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not pay the amount of profit distribution agreed upon to the Plaintiff from June 20, 2016, which caused disputes arising from the issue of marriage with the Plaintiff in early 2016. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated by cancelling the agreement on the same business.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 26 million and the unpaid profit distribution amount of KRW 21 million (7 months from June to December 2016) plus KRW 47 million.

2. The Plaintiff, on April 22, 2015, remitted KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s name, and KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s name on April 26, 2015, and, on April 26, 2015, remitted KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s name, did not conflict between the parties. However, the facts alone do not constitute an agreement that the Defendant agreed to operate a restaurant together with the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff a profit distribution amount of KRW 3 million per month, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge such agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit.

Even if the partnership is dissolved, each member shall receive the residual property in proportion to the value of the investment if the partnership is dissolved, and there is no proof of the ratio of the balance property and the value of the investment at the time of dissolution of the partnership, and the plaintiff's assertion is eventually made.