1. Of the main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and C in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount of money ordered to be paid.

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the settlement of accounts at the first instance court to the principal lawsuit, and Defendant B and C also filed a claim for the settlement of accounts as a counterclaim. The court of first instance dismissed all the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claims.

Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the subject of the claim.

2. Basic facts

A. As the trade name of “F”, Defendant B is the trade name of “G”, “H” is the trade name of “I”, and Defendant C and D are the same trade name of “J” as “J”, and operate the consignment agency of each company (hereinafter “KT”).

B. On September 2010, E, H, and Defendant B entered into a partnership agreement with each of their own investment in order to jointly operate the above agency under the integrated management policy of KT’s consignment agency (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). Around September 2010, E, H, and Defendant B entered into a partnership agreement with each of their own investment in KRW 10 million, and the Plaintiff’s operation cost sharing and distribution of profits depending on their own business performance (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

C. E, H, and Defendant B established the Plaintiff on September 6, 2010 in accordance with the instant trade agreement, and Defendant B assumed office as the Plaintiff’s auditor, the Plaintiff’s representative director, and H as the Plaintiff’s internal director.

E, H, and Defendant B entered into a consignment agency contract with KT in the name of the Plaintiff on September 13, 2010, and thereafter made all transactions with KT in the name of the Plaintiff.

E. The Defendant C and D’s investment of KRW 10 million from March 201 to KRW 10 million is based on the statement in the evidence No. 4, and the date of investment is April 15, 2011.

Part in the instant partnership agreement

Defendant C and D asserted that they were not members of the instant partnership agreement, but merely operators of the Plaintiff’s subordinate agents. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge them.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, defendant C is the temporary board of directors of October 16, 2012.