2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant invested both in C the instant KIKO Operation Fund.

However, after that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to sell the business of this case and divide the sales price according to the investment ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the KIKO did not pay the profits of this case.

Therefore, the defendant who sold the KIKO and received the sales price in full is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the investment ratio of the plaintiff out of the sales price.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 11 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to sell the instant KIKO and divide the sales price into the investment ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's main claim.

3. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the counterclaim is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's main lawsuit that was changed in exchange in this court is not correct, so the plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim is reasonable and acceptable within the above scope of recognition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed, and the part concerning the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the counterclaim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.