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

purport, purport, and.

From the fourth to fourth of the judgment of the first instance, the following changes are made: “The sales amount of the laundry factory of this case is insufficient to be recognized as the Plaintiff’s ownership, as seen in paragraph (4). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant B is without merit, and the judgment of the first instance cannot be modified disadvantageously to the Plaintiff according to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against this part of appeal shall be dismissed). From the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to half below, the following changes are made: “Nos. 3 through 5, 31, 32, and 6 are written alone, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “the Plaintiff owns the Plaintiff’s business right of the laundry factory of this case, or the entire proceeds of the laundry factory of this case,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the existence of the above agreement is without merit.

[On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant C to distribute profits. Rather, in light of the fact that the instant laundry factory was operated while living together from August 2009, the Plaintiff and Defendant C had no agreement to distribute profits, unlike ordinary business relationship. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received part of the revenue of the laundry factory from C, and the Plaintiff received laundry from the customer of the laundry factory, and the Plaintiff received money from the customer of the laundry factory (No. 6 evidence, non-prosecution notice, and the instant laundry factory, and received the sales amount.

In light of these circumstances.