1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,465,94 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 14,97,329 for Plaintiff B; and (c) from February 3, 2018 to July 2019 for each of them.

1. On December 2, 2017, the Defendant, who is a basic fact-finding case D and sexual surgery, concluded a trade agreement with D to attract Chinese customers, and the Defendant concluded a trade agreement with the Defendant to operate a sexual surgery and a member and distribute profits by 50%.

On January 2018, the Defendant opened the “F Sungwon” (the instant hospital) to Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E in its name.

D has induced Chinese customers through Chinese business trips, etc., and the defendant operated the business trip or the instant hospital.

D A. On February 2, 2018, during the Chinese business trip, died on February 2, 2018, and the Plaintiff A(3/5) and B(2/5) succeeded to the property.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the partnership relationship between D and the defendant is terminated due to the death of D, the defendant is obligated to settle the investment and earnings to the plaintiffs who are the inheritor of D.

In detail, the amount is as follows.

(1) The Defendant does not dispute the fact that D and the Defendant invested KRW 50,000,000, respectively, around December 2017.

The plaintiffs asserted that D has invested more than KRW 100 million in the Chinese local area by exchanging cash in light of the fact that the Defendant borne KRW 100 million of the instant hospital deposit, and that at least KRW 100 million of the deposit, etc. is presumed to have been disbursed in order to conduct an operation in the Chinese region.

However, 100 million won was paid by the Defendant as the money loaned by the Defendant, and since the interest on the loan was disbursed from the operating expenses of the instant hospital, it is difficult to regard the security deposit as the Defendant’s investment deposit, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that D invested more than KRW 100 million only with the statement in Gap 4-1 through 3.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that D had invested the rash machinery that was previously received from the Defendant in the instant hospital, it is not enough to recognize it solely with the entries in Gap 6.

② The Defendant’s income and expenditure of the instant hospital is not completed with respect to the same business as at the time of D’s death.