2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for the modification or addition of five parts of the first instance court's decision as follows. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(a) revise, below the sixth, to the following "a condition", "a condition or a condition that does not constitute further recruitment within a reasonable period of time";

(b)in the front of the 7th 1st Doctrine, add the following details:

In a case where the parties have determined the period for performance when uncertain facts have occurred, not only the time such facts have occurred but also the time when such facts have become impossible. Here, in specifically determining whether the occurrence of uncertain facts, which are the grounds for indefinite time, becomes impossible, the parties’ intent, the type, characteristics, and the degree of time elapsed, etc. shall be taken into account in order to determine whether the occurrence of uncertain facts becomes impossible, and where the facts of uncertain time are affected by the social economic situation, it shall be carefully determined as to whether it is impossible according to the social norms by taking into account the wide range of circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da78577, Jun. 24, 2003).

(c)The parts described in paragraphs 7-1 to 5 "not evidence" shall be amended as follows:

Considering the following circumstances, the progress of the instant project by the Defendant Union is somewhat somewhat smaller than the initial plan, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) whether the period of uncertainty under Article 7(4) of the instant subscription agreement has arrived due to impossibility of replacing an additional member or a general seller; (b) whether the period of uncertainty under Article 7(4) of the instant subscription agreement has arrived, taking into account the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Sections B through B and E, 10

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to replace the instant project with the additional union members or general buyers or to the extent that it is impossible to replace the additional union members or general buyers, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

D. On October 15, 2017, the 7th page " was selected," the 7th page 12 " was modified, and the ASEAN East corporation was selected as the contractor."

E. Following the 8th page “S. ..............” added the “one half-time buyer was scheduled to be recruited on July 2018, even if in accordance with the original business plan of the other party or the defendant.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jin-tae