1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Around 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to carry out a joint business of building up ten houses on the ground of 3,847 square meters of land outside Seopo-si, Seopopopopo-si (hereinafter “D development business”).

On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant the design cost of D Development Project KRW 80,500,000,000, the down payment of KRW 12 million, to the Defendant.

B. After that, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to terminate the partnership business contract, and the defendant independently carried out and completed the D development project.

C. As long as the contract is terminated in the middle of a partnership between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff with settlement or unjust enrichment following the termination of the partnership agreement.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in the business of developing and selling real estate in around 2015 that they independently promoted real estate development projects, etc., and that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 12 million to the Defendant on March 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant money”) on the grounds that there was no dispute between the parties.

The partnership agreement can be seen as a partnership agreement, and even if the partnership agreement can claim settlement due to the dissolution of partnership or the withdrawal from partnership, the partnership agreement cannot be terminated as in the general contract, and the other party cannot seek restitution or unjust enrichment due to it.

The plaintiff's claim of this case can be viewed as a claim for distribution against the defendant who holds the residual property of a union, on the premise that two partnership relations are terminated by withdrawal or dissolution claim.

However, even based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the entire details of the partnership's residual assets and their legitimate distribution ratio cannot be known, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant owns residual assets exceeding its own residual assets distribution ratio.

Therefore, the plaintiff.