1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,684,357 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from December 7, 2015 to February 8, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a business partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant business partnership agreement”) and leased a store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (D 712 Dong 105; hereinafter “instant store”) in the joint name on the same day, and the terms and conditions of the lease are KRW 100,000,000,000 for deposit money, KRW 6,050,000 for the tea (including value-added tax) and the period from December 8, 2014 to December 8, 2019.

On November 20, 2014, business registration was made in the name of the defendant, and around December 19, 2014, Smarket business began with the trade name called "E".

On March 2, 2015, the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff withdrawn from the partnership relationship, and the agreement was terminated, and thereafter, the defendant operates the Smarket in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserting that the Plaintiff is entitled to pay KRW 82,285,380 with the Plaintiff’s contribution, KRW 2,000,000 with the Plaintiff’s reimbursement, and KRW 10,587,50 with the net profit settlement during the period of the operation, including KRW 10,587,50 with the Plaintiff’s contribution.

The Plaintiff sought a total of KRW 142,250 won, including KRW 73,00,000, KRW 28,000,000, and net profit settlement amount of KRW 82,50,000, as a contribution partner in the Plaintiff’s complaint. However, on December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff changed the claim amount and the cause of the claim through a preparatory document as of December 12, 2016.

However, the claim amount sought by the instant lawsuit itself was not reduced.

B. The instant partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is also a third party that is not only the Plaintiff but also F. Thus, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant only who is a part of the Plaintiff’s partners is unlawful.

② Since the Defendant contributed a more partner than the Plaintiff, the Defendant is not obligated to return the contribution to the Plaintiff.

All of the Plaintiff’s benefits were paid.

In addition, the defendant has only suffered business losses during the period of the same business, so there is no obligation to pay net profit settlement.

3. Determination on this safety defense.