1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 332,634,615 and as a result, from March 16, 2019 to May 1, 2019.

1. The location of a basic fact-finding agreement: E: B (50%) : C (20%) : A (20%) ; A, B, and C enter into a joint contract with respect to all businesses from April 16, 2014; and all responsibilities for the business shall be based on the equity ratio.

On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant partnership agreement”) with the Defendants to jointly carry on a business jointly running “E” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as “E”), and drafted a partnership agreement with the following content:

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants: (a) invested KRW 250 million in Defendant B; (b) KRW 150 million in Defendant C; and (c) KRW 100 million in the Plaintiff, respectively; and (b) settled accounts of KRW 20 percent in the monthly turnover from May 10, 2014 to July 2017; and (c) received dividends after deducting 38% and 24% of the following taxes from each share ratio.

C. Around November 2016, the Defendants offered to the Plaintiff that “I would like to change E to a corporate entity, receive KRW 100 million from the investment fund and withdraw from the same business,” and the Plaintiff refused this.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to submit accounting data, etc. from E- 2014 to 2016. The Defendants sent content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, on May 2017 and around June, 2017, since the nature of the instant partnership agreement is an anonymous association under the Commercial Act and the trust relationship has already been extinguished, and thus, the content-certified mail was sent to the Plaintiff prior notification that the undisclosed association agreement should be terminated on December 31, 2017, the end of the business year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 2 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is a partnership under the Civil Act, and the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants has already been extinguished, and thus, the duplicate of the complaint in this case has been served.