1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is in the process of judgment.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are as follows, and this part of the facts are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Paragraph 1.

Part 3, Part 7, and Part 5, the "instant contract" shall be deemed to be the "instant business partnership agreement".

From the last day to the fourth day of the 3th to the 4th day of the 4th day, the construction of the GModern Exhibition Hall (hereinafter “instant construction”) entered into a contract on the construction of the GModern Exhibition Hall (hereinafter “instant construction”) and entered into the said contract on the construction of the GModern Exhibition Hall (hereinafter “instant construction”).

‘Faly-friendly’.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff’s principal claim for distribution of residual property following the dissolution of the association and the Defendant’s association under the instant partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant association”).

(2) On September 26, 2014, the Defendant was dissolved upon the Defendant’s request for dissolution. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to distribute residual property to the Plaintiff, as part of the distribution of residual property owned by himself/herself, to pay the Plaintiff a share of KRW 997,241,415 according to the Plaintiff’s investment ratio, and the delay damages therefrom. (2) The Defendant filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to the Defendant’s sole possession of the property of the instant association, which was dissolved, after September 26, 2014, used the instant association for business by possessing all the property of the

Accordingly, the defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the property corresponding to the plaintiff's investment ratio, and the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of 407,302,740 won (i.e., rent for tangible property KRW 270,113,340 for rental fees for tangible property) and damages for delay therefrom, from September 26, 2014 to October 23, 2019, when the instant association was dissolved.

3..