2. The defendant's unlimited partnership C's right to conduct business.

A. The non-party company is an unlimited partnership company established on March 5, 1997 for the purpose of selling Byung's occupation and its incidental business.

The defendant is a representative member of the non-party company from 1997 to the date of its execution.

B. The non-party company has been in charge of the duties of the defendant, D, and E after its establishment.

Since the withdrawal of E on September 16, 2010, the plaintiff (business) who became a member of the non-party company around that time has been in charge of the business with the defendant and D (accounting).

The members of the non-party company are six persons, including the Plaintiff, the Defendant, D, F, G, and H.

C. The provisions pertaining to this case in the articles of incorporation of the non-party company are as follows.

Article 8 (Self-Transactions of Members) Where any member intends to trade with a company on his own account or on the account of a third party, he shall obtain a resolution of a majority of other members.

Article 17 (Withdrawn Members) Members shall be retired due to any of the following reasons:

(1) In the following cases, the company may request, by a resolution of a majority of the other members, the court for the expulsion of any member, if the member has reached the age of 65 (if the member has reached the age of 65) due to a cause or event set forth in the articles of incorporation, (2) the consent of all the members, (3) death, (4) incompetency, (5) bankruptcy, (6) expulsion, (7) expulsion, and (7)

(3) When operations are conducted without authority or representative of the company (4) or there is any other important reason, 【founded ground for recognition】 Statement A’s evidence

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant asserts as follows.

(1) Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for confirmation of the absence of membership rights should be dismissed on the grounds that the claim is not identical to the original claim for a declaration of forfeiture of membership rights.

(2) The primary claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. (1) The purport of the claim is that the Plaintiff’s identity on September 17, 2013, as the basis of the claim, “the Defendant confirms the absence of membership rights of the non-party company.”