The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the limit of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, there are many arguments in the lawsuit that attacked the court below's finding of evidence and fact-finding, which eventually leads to criticism of the lower court's exclusive authority, which is a fact-finding court, and thus cannot be accepted.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, if the plaintiff 1 is a deceased non-party 1's heir among the deceased non-party 1's heir who entered into the partnership agreement of this case with the defendant and the remaining plaintiffs' legal representative who are the remaining inheritors, decided the above non-party 1's share ratio to 35.7% among the remaining property for the partnership of this case due to the termination of the partnership of this case, and decided to settle the refund share amount to 50,000 won, the above non-party 1's share ratio to 35.7% with the defendant, it shall be deemed that the settlement contract was entered into as stated by the court below. Therefore, if the above share ratio is calculated erroneously, the plaintiff's assertion about the reasons should be proved, and if there is a part of the outstanding share amount of No. 5 (Dong contract) of the theory, it shall not be deemed that the above share ratio is erroneous.

Furthermore, if a settlement contract is concluded, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished and discarded by the original legal relationship, barring any special circumstances, and a new legal relationship occurs by a settlement contract without asking whether the previous legal relationship has been left, and even if there is an error in the expression of intent in the instant settlement contract, this does not relate to any matter other than the dispute which is the object of the parties' qualification or settlement, but if it is related to the legal relationship that is the object of the dispute, it cannot be cancelled. Thus, the argument that the original share ratio of the Plaintiff, etc. is different from that of the settlement contract cannot be permitted.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the allocation of burden of proof or neglecting judgment on the evidence.

In addition, if the reconciliation contract of this case is performed under the circumstances and circumstances as recognized by the court below and the contents of the contract are the same as recognized by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the reconciliation contract of this case cannot be deemed to be an unfair juristic act or a deception shall also be justified. Such judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair legal act or a juristic act by fraud.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)