All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal, the association agreement under the Civil Act is a contract under which two or more persons agree to jointly invest in a trade name to operate a business (Article 703 of the Civil Act), and it can be deemed that the agreement is limited to the agreement to jointly operate a specific business, and the degree of the achievement of the common purpose does not meet the requirements

(2) The court below held that the Defendants’ relation to the instant land and new buildings belongs to the partnership’s property and did not constitute a joint business operation purpose. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants’ obligation to enter into a service contract with the Plaintiff is a joint and several liability or an indivisible debt, based on its stated reasoning. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants’ relation to the instant land and new buildings belongs to a joint and several liability or an indivisible debt, on the ground of its stated reasoning. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) the Defendants’ relation to the instant land and new buildings belongs to the partnership’s property for the purpose of achieving the common purpose; and (b) the Defendants shared the instant land and new buildings for the instant land and new buildings for the instant land and new buildings for the purpose of achieving the common purpose.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the obligation to conclude a service contract and the joint and several obligations under Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 2 in light of the record, the lower court determined that the instant service contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s delay of performance, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and then, rescinded against the Plaintiff of the Defendant Oil Broadcasting Network (hereinafter “Defendant Oil Broadcasting”).