2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added at the trial.

A. From February 2013, the Defendant, from the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, engaged in the skin house business with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to contribute to KRW 12 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment”) and distribute profits arising from the instant business to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant trade agreement”).

C. Around September 2013, the Defendant secured the instant business as a relic, and transferred the instant business to another person around December 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant agreed to return the investment amount of this case to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay 12 million won to the plaintiff.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the partial statement of No. 3, and there is no other evidence, so the above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim (a claim based on the termination of the instant agreement)

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant agreement was terminated on November 2013, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant equity investment to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s instant agreement constitutes an association. As such, the Defendant’s agreement on the instant agreement constitutes a partnership, it is not possible to claim distribution of residual property due to the completion of liquidation procedures, and the sales cost is larger than the operating profit, and the remaining residual property remains. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim cannot be

B. If the instant partnership agreement is characterized by the nature of the instant partnership agreement, it should operate the business jointly with the partnership and have the partnership property separate from the properties of the partnership.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged or known by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff in this case.