2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

2. As follows, a part of the court of first instance which has been dried shall have been dried between 16 and 6 pages:

As the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides for a person entitled to file a request for adjudication of expulsion under Article 21 of the Company’s articles of incorporation, the Plaintiff, other than “company” under Article 220(1) of the Commercial Act, may file a request for adjudication of expulsion against the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, the lawsuit for the claim for expulsion against a limited partnership company member constitutes a lawsuit for formation, and the lawsuit for formation may be filed only where there are explicit provisions in the law. As such, the standing to sue who may file the above claim for expulsion shall be governed by the provisions of the Company’s articles of incorporation, so it cannot be deemed that the standing to sue is expanded pursuant to the provisions of the Company’s articles of incorporation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. 6-10 to 7-8 of the judgment of the first instance court as follows.

1) Article 205 of the Commercial Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 269 of the Commercial Act is based on the premise that there are more than two general partners, and if there are only one general partner, there is no room to apply this system.

(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da1341 delivered on April 26, 197). The fact that the general partner of the company of this case is only the defendant is the defendant is identical to the above. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the loss of executive authority against the defendant cannot be accepted.

2) The reasons are as follows. A limited partnership company is organized into a general partner and a limited partner (Article 268 of the Commercial Act; a general partner and a limited partner are not otherwise provided in its articles of incorporation.