1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to new arguments in the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. In order to operate a restaurant between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff on the operation of the restaurant business (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). On June 11, 2013, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was liquidated on the same day by taking away the E business place without permission by the Defendant’s seizure of the E business place without permission.

Therefore, the Defendant bears the obligation to distribute residual property following the liquidation of the business agreement to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 70% of the balance of E’s business account 10,651,073 won and the amount equivalent to 70% of the remainder of E’s existing investment amounting to 150,000,000 won and the amount equivalent to 150% of the existing investment amount.

B. 1) Whether the partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is terminated or not, in the partnership agreement as referred to in the partnership agreement as referred to in the partnership agreement, only a claim for dissolution of the partnership, withdrawal from the partnership, or expulsion of other union members, cannot be cancelled or terminated as in the general contract, and the other party shall not be obliged to perform the obligation to restore to its original state arising therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7157, May 13, 1994). However, if a certain partner gives notice of termination to another union under the circumstance that the trust relationship is broken due to indivation or disestablishment between the parties to the partnership and the withdrawal or expulsion of a specific union, and that a specific partner cannot expect the smooth operation of the partnership's business, it shall be deemed a request for dissolution of the partnership