According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the contract of the instant partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated, and maintained the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the claim for the instant loan and the damages for delay, on the ground that the plaintiff paid 52,108,074 won to the defendant under the agreement of the instant partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "loan of this case") and the defendant repaid the instant loan of this case to the plaintiff within 20 months from the date of commencement of sale of timber under the agreement of the instant partnership, and that the defendant agreed to immediately return the loan of this case to the plaintiff when the agreement

However, according to the records, the defendant, through the preparatory documents, etc. as stated on July 10, 2015 as of the first day for pleading of the court below, stated in the court below. ① At the risk that the defendant entrusted the plaintiff with the processing of the goods as collective trees before the contract of this case, the defendant set up a defense against the plaintiff that the plaintiff would set off the claim for damages of KRW 74,784,300 due to the non-performance of the obligation 24.92m due to the non-performance of the obligation 24.92m due to the non-performance of the obligation of the plaintiff, and ② pursuant to the contract of this case, the defendant sold the goods as collective trees to Multilock Co., Ltd. and received the order of seizure and assignment of the claim for the amount of the goods acquired by the defendant, the defendant set off the claim for the settlement amount of KRW 2,

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether each of the above claims alleged by the defendant is recognized and whether the plaintiff's loan claim of this case is offset against the plaintiff's loan of this case. However, the court below did not make any decision as to the defendant's counterclaim. Therefore, the court below erred by omitting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed by the assent of all participating Justices, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition.