All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

purport.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff and E own 1/2 shares of the instant building.

B. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s partner, and Defendant C is the partner of Defendant B.

C. From July 1, 1997 to February 23, 2015, while the Plaintiff operated a restaurant in the name of “D” on the first floor of the instant building, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendants, under which the Defendants would jointly operate the said restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from February 23, 2015 to February 23, 2020, under the condition that the Defendants invest KRW 30,000,000 in the said restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) and would equally divide the profits therefrom (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). D.

On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail to the effect that “the Defendant unilaterally finds the Plaintiff in violation of the instant association agreement and operates the instant restaurant, so the instant association agreement becomes null and void, and the Defendants were removed from the instant restaurant.” This reached the Defendants around that time.

E. On the other hand, on April 18, 2016, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “the Plaintiff interfered with the joint operation of the instant restaurant by various means in violation of the instant association agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be expelled from the position as a partner as of April 17, 2016.” This reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] According to the above facts and facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the grounds for the judgment as to the main claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendants are obligated to deliver the instant restaurant to the plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance as the 1/2 right holder of the instant restaurant, unless the defendants have a legitimate title to possess the instant restaurant.

The Defendants are entitled to possess the instant restaurant. The Defendants are entitled to possess the instant restaurant.