1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance as to the part that the plaintiff added to the part that the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2).

2. Additional determination

A. On April 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to operate a business with the Defendants for the settlement of accounts (hereinafter “instant business”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendants invested KRW 112,397,568 in the amount of KRW 64,00,00; (b) the Defendants invested KRW 30,000,000 in the amount of KRW 30,066,348; and (c) the amount of business revenue is KRW 38,331,190 in the amount of business settlement; and (d) the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 112,397,568 in the amount of business settlement; and (e) the Defendants are obligated to pay the amount of KRW 64,00,06,378 in the amount of business revenue; and (e) the amount of business revenue is KRW 10,06,348,00 in the amount of business settlement; and

The facts that the Plaintiff and Defendant C engaged in the business of this case did not conflict between the parties, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in the business of this case even with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the claim for the settlement of accounts against Defendant Co., Ltd. and D is without merit.

In addition, even if there was a business partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C on the instant project, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the settlement of accounts, excluding the business revenue, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for settlement of accounts against Defendant C is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding Defendant D’s counterclaim is based on a smart farm around May 2016.