정산금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of this court as to this part of the facts admitted is as follows, except for the addition, revision, or deletion as follows, the part of “the recognition of facts 2.” of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of “the recognition of facts 2.” Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of
(1) The third and third papers of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1 through 3, 7, and 10.”
(2) Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court in Part 9 "the office of this case" shall be "Seoul Jung-gu D and E Ground Building (F Building) 1107 (hereinafter "the office of this case")".
(3) On Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance, the phrase “joint and several” shall be added between the defendant and “settlement of accounts” in Part 13.
④ On the third page of the judgment of the first instance court, the part regarding “as agreed, to sell the instant office in the name of the Plaintiff and include the sales price in the above KRW 500 million shall be deleted.”
(5) From the third side of the judgment of the first instance to the end of the sixth instance, the phrase “payment” shall be added to the phrase “366,174,000 won”.
2. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s assertion of the party in question and the determination thereof should be excluded from the settlement amount to be paid by the Defendants because there is no dispute between the parties that received KRW 366,174,00 among the settlement amount of KRW 500 million from the Defendant’s partnership business, and whether the office in this case constitutes a partnership business property and should be excluded from the settlement amount to be paid by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant office belongs to the Plaintiff’s ownership and is excluded from the business property. The instant office belongs to the Plaintiff’s personal ownership and is not included in the same business property, and the sales price cannot be included in the settlement amount. On September 27, 2014, the instant office receives KRW 500 million from the Defendants, who are partners, and receives the settlement amount.