A. (1) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence No. 1; (c) evidence No. 1; and (d) fact-finding with respect to C representative D of this Court; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

(A) On May 23, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract with C to build “E” vessels in KRW 320 million.

(B) Around June 2012, the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant to jointly operate the fishing vessel, and accordingly, remitted the amount of KRW 200 million on June 25, 2012, and KRW 50 million on July 2, 2012 to the Defendant as investment money.

(C) Upon completion of E, the Defendant registered the transfer of ownership in the name of F on June 12, 2012, and on July 16, 2012, the Defendant registered the transfer of ownership in the name of G as the Defendant’s child.

(D) On December 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s receipt of a loan of KRW 150 million as security E, and requested the Defendant to return the investment amount by expressing his intent to terminate the partnership agreement.

Accordingly, on May 25, 2012, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 250 million from the Plaintiff, retroactively to the date of May 25, 2012, and that the Defendant borrowed KRW 250 million from the Plaintiff.

(2) Where the association is dissolved, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the remaining property and its value to be distributed to the association members are determined at the time of completion of the liquidation procedure. Thus, in principle, the association cannot request the distribution of its remaining property under the condition that the liquidation procedure is not completed. However, where the association does not dispose of its remaining property as a remaining business and only the distribution of its remaining property remains, each union member may immediately request the distribution of its remaining property within the scope of its residual property distribution ratio, without undergoing separate liquidation procedures.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on April 21, 200