1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why this court shall state this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the instant business partnership agreement is dissolved and distribution of residual assets of the partnership under the instant business partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant partnership”).

(2) The association of this case is dissolved on January 2, 2018 of the defendant's declaration of intent to terminate the partnership agreement and to request the dissolution of the partnership prior to commencement of the business (On the other hand, the defendant is merely a party to the partnership agreement, but the plaintiff Eul was not a party to the partnership agreement. However, the defendant was a party to the partnership agreement of this case. The defendant was a party to the agreement of this case. The defendant was a party to the agreement of this case with the receiver, and the defendant was a party to the agreement of this case with the receiver, and the contents of the agreement of this case was sent to the defendant as the receiver, and "the agreement of this case was concluded between the receiver and the defendant." 2) The agreement of this case is established when the partnership is dissolved, as long as there is no separate agreement between the parties to the agreement, the remaining assets and the amount of the remaining assets are distributed to the union members at the time of completion of the liquidation procedure, so it is not possible to request the distribution of the remaining assets without the distribution ratio of the remaining assets to the union members.

Supreme Court Decision 94Da13749 delivered on February 24, 1995