The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the value of investment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s actual investment ratio under the instant trade agreement were 1/2, respectively, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the records, we affirm the above determination by the court below, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the dissolution and liquidation of partnership relations around August 2006, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around August 2006, on the grounds that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was merely an agreement on the part to be borne by each party in proportion to the area to be used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the separation of the store of this case, cannot be deemed as an agreement on the adjustment of the ratio of actual investment in partnership relations between Plaintiff 1/4 and Defendant 3

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on dissolution and liquidation of partnership relations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the premium, the lower court determined that the premium pursuant to the instant chonsegwon transfer contract on the instant store was also included in the association’s property on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to premium, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the evidence as to the grounds of appeal on set-off against the debt claim as the automatic claim.