1. An appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit, and an appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts or any additional parts among the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the first instance court's decision 3 pages 14 of the 3rd instance court's decision was written with "B. Judgment on the Reasons for the Claim".

The following are added to the fourth 15th 15th 15th 1st 1st 1th 1th 1th 1th 1th 1th 1th 2th 2th 3th 4th 4th 2th 3th 4th 4th 4th 4th 1st 5th 1st 5th 1st 5th 1st 1

C. The Defendants asserted that the judgment of the court of first instance ordering each of the Defendants to pay the entire amount of equity shares held by the Plaintiff was erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles as to partnership obligations. However, in the absence of any special declaration of intent, each of the creditors or debtors has rights in equal proportion and bears obligations (Article 408 of the Civil Act), and in the judgment ordering payment of money, unless there are two or more defendants, it is the principle that each of them is divided obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da370, Sept. 5, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 63Da370, Sept. 5, 1963). However, the judgment of the court of first instance ruled that “the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of settlement agreement and its delay damages,” on the ground that the Defendants did not jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of settlement to the Plaintiff. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, this constitutes a divided obligation for which the Defendants are liable to pay

Therefore, the defendants' assertion under the premise that the judgment of the first instance court ordered the defendant to pay the whole equity amount to the plaintiff does not need to be examined further.