1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, around early 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendants on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, a building company in Gwangju City D, constructed three multi-household houses and two multi-family houses (hereinafter “each of the instant houses”) and then divided the sales of each of the instant houses into 50:50.

The Plaintiff completed each of the instant houses on the land owned by the Defendants pursuant to the aforementioned business agreement, but failed to settle the profits from the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 553,500,000 (Total amount of KRW 1,107,000,000 in each of the instant housing x 1/2) with the settlement amount pursuant to the business agreement.

2. 판단 동업계약은 민법상 조합계약의 일종이라 할 것인바, 민법상의 조합계약은 2인 이상이 상호 출자하여 공동으로 사업을 경영할 것을 약정하는 계약으로서, 특정한 사업을 공동 경영하는 약정에 한하여 이를 조합계약이라고 할 수 있고, 공동의 목적달성이라는 정도만으로는 조합의 성립요건을 갖추었다고 할 수 없으며(대법원 2010. 2. 11. 선고 2009다79729 판결 등 참조), 당사자 사이의 약정이 조합계약에 해당한다고 하려면 조합원 각자의 출자내용과 그에 따른 손익분배비율 및 그 업무집행의 방법 등이 정하여져 있음을 밝혀야 할 것이다

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu390, Sept. 24, 1985). Each statement in the Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 27, and 28 with respect to the instant case, in constructing and selling each of the instant housing, the Plaintiff invested money in accordance with a partnership business agreement.

거나 원ㆍ피고들 사이에 동업계약으로 볼 만한 손익분배비율 및 업무집행방법 등에 관한 약정이 있었다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's conclusion is reasonable.