1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with D and E with a view to promoting a reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the 18 units and Nadong 18 units with respect to the operation of 18 units and Nadong 18 units on the ground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City’s ground C ground (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”).

B. The Plaintiff, D, and E decided to acquire the Defendant Company in order to promote the instant reconstruction project. On March 7, 2011, D was an internal director and a joint representative director, and the Plaintiff and E were appointed as an internal director of the Plaintiff Company. (2) On March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff decided to make an investment in kind in order to acquire the shares of the Defendant Company to acquire the shares of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, on April 21, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each of the instant co-ownership shares to the Defendant Company.

(However, in form, the reason for registration was a sales contract).

G 1) The Plaintiff’s ASEAN, including the conclusion of a partnership agreement with G, shall enter into a partnership agreement with D and E on August 3, 2012 (hereinafter “instant secondary partnership agreement”).

(2) On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff, D, and E decided to cancel the agreement on the first operating arrangement of the instant case.

G notified G of the cancellation of the second partnership agreement in this case on May 14, 2014 to D and E on the ground that each of the obligations under the second partnership agreement in this case is not fulfilled, and notified of the cancellation of the second partnership agreement in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that he transferred the ownership of each of the instant co-ownership to the defendant company on the grounds of the first and second partnership agreements of this case, and thereafter the first and second partnership agreements of this case are legitimate.