2. Where one of the two members withdraws from a cooperative consisting of two judges of this Court, the cooperative is not dissolved and only the settlement of the withdrawal from the cooperative and distribution of the remaining assets among the withdrawings and remainings. There is no dispute between the parties as to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the cooperative relationship of the hospital of this case and the fact that the Plaintiff should distribute the above union’s assets to 50:50 as of November 30, 2015. Thus, the settlement amount that the Plaintiff would receive from the Defendant as a result of withdrawal from the cooperative relationship of the hospital of this case is the amount calculated by deducting the amount already received by the Plaintiff from the half of the amount calculated as follows.

A. The instant hospital’s active assets (i) tangible assets (medical devices) KRW 124,395,133 (excluding depreciation standards, overlapping parts, etc. in accounting) are assessed as KRW 124,395,13 for the following reasons.

First, the appraiser F of the first instance trial assessed the value of the medical device of this case as KRW 466,957,007 on the basis of the expected medical device market price. However, the appraiser was found to have been on the basis of the expected medical device market price. However, the appraiser did not actually investigate the market price of the second and the estimated market price in a reasonable way based on the market price of the second and that the market price can be derived from the acquisition of the medical device by simply multiplying the acquisition price of the medical device by a certain ratio. The "acquisition price" in this context is merely the amount actually paid by the original defendant while the medical device was dead, but is not an objective value of the medical device; the "fixed ratio" mentioned above is also 45% in the case of the second and the middle, 40% in the case of the middle, and 40% in the case of the middle.