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

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 72,093,289, to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated a restaurant that sells original meat on the first floor from among the buildings with the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). The Plaintiff invested KRW 150 million in investment, and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the content that the Plaintiff invests KRW 150 million in the construction price of the instant restaurant in a manner equivalent to the same amount (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). The Plaintiff invested KRW 150 million in the amount of the construction price of the instant restaurant; the Plaintiff invested KRW 150 million in the amount of the trade price; the Plaintiff contributed KRW 150 million in the amount of the trade price; and the Defendant bears the aforementioned construction price of KRW 150 million in the amount of the construction price.

B. Around July 2007, the Defendant leased the first floor of the building from E, the owner of the above building, to KRW 35 million, monthly rent of KRW 35 million from August 2007 to KRW 3350,000, and operated the instant restaurant from August 2007.

C. During the period of the business, the Plaintiff managed the proceeds of the instant restaurant, and the credit card sales proceeds of the said restaurant directly deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, and in the case of cash sales, the revenues were deposited into the account in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s name on the day, but the Defendant later remitted the revenues of the day he worked to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was guilty of fraud on the ground that the defendant did not perform his/her duty to contribute to the partnership agreement of this case, and the defendant filed a complaint with each investigation agency for embezzlement on the ground that the plaintiff voluntarily consumeded the proceeds accrued from the partnership agreement of this case. However, the plaintiff was around November 9, 2009, and the defendant was the same year.

2. At around 19. A disposition was taken to the effect that each was suspected.

E. The instant restaurant was closed in March 2010, and the Plaintiff did not distribute the profits to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 8, Gap evidence 8-1 to 7, and Eul evidence 1.