1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. In general, since a claim for judgment on the benefit of confirmation is the ability of an obligor to receive payment from the obligor, the obligee claims the existence of the claim against the obligor and claims for the payment of the claim even in court. However, in a case where two or more creditors claim one another with respect to the claim, the dispute on the attribution of the claim is not arising between the obligor and the obligee, but arising between the obligee himself/herself and the person who asserts that the claim is the obligee, and if the obligee has received the repayment from the obligor, the genuine obligee is likely to infringe on his/her right, so it is necessary to immediately confirm the attribution of the claim, and it is necessary to obtain a judgment on the attribution of the claim from the named obligee immediately, and it is the most effective remedy for the claim to confirm the attribution of the claim between them. Thus, one of his/her claims asserted to be the obligee and the other party should be deemed to have the benefit of confirmation.

(Supreme Court Decision 87Meu269 delivered on September 27, 198). In the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a 1/2 partnership share in the Plaintiff regarding the money deposited in the name of D pursuant to the partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the parties, as to the money deposited in the name of D pursuant to the partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff only intended himself and did not have engaged in a partnership with the Plaintiff in relation to the purchase and sale of trend. Therefore, the instant claim seeking confirmation to the effect that 1/2 of the money deposited in the name of D belongs to the Plaintiff is also a benefit of confirmation.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the partnership as of October 2012.