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. Basic facts

A. On May 2004, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C agreed to purchase D’s land and jointly operate penta by investing KRW 140,000,000 each in 140,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant trade agreement”). (b)

On July 20, 2005, E, the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband, completed the construction of the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant pen”).

C A. From October 2005, from around October 2008, the Plaintiff started operating the instant pentle from around April 2008, and from around October 2009, the Defendant and the Plaintiff and C operated the instant pentle from around October 2013.

C. On May 6, 2014, the Defendant withdrawn from the instant partnership agreement with the Plaintiff and C.

On the other hand, on July 9, 2009, the Defendant changed the 99.63 square meters of the instant pentry floor from a house to a Class I neighborhood living facility. On April 6, 2010, the Defendant entrusted a contract to F, and carried out the interior works of the entire pentry floor of the instant penty from April 13, 2010 to August 9, 2010. The Defendant paid KRW 50,400,000 as the construction price above to F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, only a house with a total floor area of less than 230 square meters may be designated as an agricultural and fishing village gambling business operator. On July 9, 2009, the Defendant changed the use of 9.63 square meters out of 189 square meters of the 1st floor of the instant pentle into a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (the changed use part shall not be deemed as a Class 1 neighborhood living facility) and on July 15, 2009, registered the business of the instant pentle on July 15, 2009.

The Defendant, who is another member of the Plaintiff and C, did not seek the consent of the Plaintiff and C, performed remodeling works on the entire size of 189.2 square meters of the instant pention 1st, and the construction cost of KRW 50,400,000 was spent as the proceeds of the instant pension.

The Defendant is equivalent to the construction cost required to remodel the portion of 99.63m2, which cannot be carried out by the private housing business among the 1st floor of this case, as the money of the association.