1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the payment of KRW 37,187,531 and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. From October 31, 2002, the Plaintiff and Defendant C acquired the ownership share of the building on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 447.6 square meters and its ground, and on November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired 2/3 shares in the above site and the instant mother, and Defendant C acquired 1/3 shares, respectively.

B. Around December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) with Defendant C, the husband, and Defendant B received KRW 5 million per month from the operating income as operating fees. The Defendants concluded a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to distribute 2/3 of the net income, which deducts various taxes and public charges and necessary expenses from the remaining operating income, to the Plaintiff.

From that time, the Plaintiff received profit distribution from the Defendants.

C. From August 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants paid only part of the total operating earnings of the instant telecom, and embezzled the remainder by paying it to the Plaintiff.

During that period, the National Tax Service conducted a tax investigation on the operation of the instant Moel by reporting by the Plaintiff.

The National Tax Service estimated the income accrued from the operation of the instant telecom on the basis of the volume of water used during the period of the instant telecom, and calculated the income omitted from the estimated income less the amount reported as the revenue of the instant telecom.

From May 1, 2014 to May 12, 2014, each tax authority imposed global income tax, local income tax, and value-added tax on May 31, 2014 on the Plaintiff registered as a joint business proprietor of the instant Moel on the basis of the aforementioned omitted revenues, as shown in the attached Table attached hereto, upon the Plaintiff registered as a joint business proprietor of the instant Moel.

Global income tax and local income tax were imposed on the Plaintiff only on the amount equivalent to 2/3 of the Plaintiff’s business shares, among the total amount of tax for the instant cartel.