1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) added at the appellate court to the main lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the appellate court accepting the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) the reasons for the statement concerning this case is that the appellate court submitted the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (b) “Around October 2, 2017” in the 4th 11th eth eth 1st eth eth 1st eth eth eth eth eth 2017; (c) “A around September 2015” in the 5th eth 12th eth eth eth eth eth 12; and (d) “Defendant A” in the 6th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

Even if each statement is presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable) and this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, from the next point of view, the plaintiff added the judgment as to the claims added in the appellate court as preliminary.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant did not recognize the cost-sharing agreement, in light of the literal meaning of Article 6 of the instant contract or the interpretation of the entire context of the instant contract and the reasonable commercial transaction practices, the matters concerning the profit-sharing method of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as stipulated in the instant contract, shall be determined by deducting the total operating costs and investment costs incurred by the Plaintiff from the total sales of the instant business (hereinafter “cost”) and then allocating them according to the share distribution rate as stipulated in the instant contract.

Therefore, according to such method of distribution, the profits to be reverted to the Plaintiff are KRW 562,91,120, and the profits to be reverted to the Defendant are KRW 424,712,60. If the Plaintiff deducts the profits already paid to the Defendant from KRW 424,712,60, the above profits to be paid to the Defendant, which the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant, and the profits that the Defendant received from the Defendant upon the Plaintiff’s order after seizing the Plaintiff’s claims against the Plaintiff Company E, the Defendant should return the profits to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment and delay damages therefrom.

(b).