1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,992,352 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 25, 2014 to October 14, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on the first floor of the building located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the trade name “D”, and without setting the duration of the business relationship, entered into a partnership agreement with the name of the business operator, the Defendant, and the share ratio of the partnership (hereinafter “instant partnership relationship”), and operated the instant restaurant from April 19, 2014.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant demanded the payment of the amount of the settlement to the Defendant, when withdrawing from the instant partnership relationship with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assets of the restaurant of this case are KRW 300 million including premium, etc. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 150 million due to the termination of the instant business relationship, and damages for delay thereof. 2) Even if not, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 50 million due to the Defendant’s unlawful reversal of the instant business relationship and KRW 60 million, which would have been able to incur if the business relationship had been maintained, and thus, the Defendant sought compensation against the Defendant for the said damages.

B. 1) Determination on the cause of the claim 1) Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 8 are comprehensively taken into account the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement as to the cause of the claim. In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, it is recognized that the plaintiff had 20,000 won as active property of the restaurant of this case at the time when the plaintiff withdraws from the partnership of this case, such as the claim to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 as active property of the restaurant of this case, and the collection period of KRW 2,00,000 as small

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is in the business relationship of this case to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.