1. According to the counterclaim that had been changed in exchange in this court, the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) had to the defendant (the counterclaim plaintiff) on 232.

In the judgment of this court, the plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit claiming a share of profits following the termination of the partnership business, and the defendant filed a counterclaim claiming a reimbursement for joint discharge of union obligations. It is evident that the court of first instance dismissed both the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim, and only the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant in the judgment of first instance against the lawsuit against the defendant in the judgment of first instance.

Therefore, only the defendant's counterclaim claim is subject to this court's judgment, and as mentioned above, the defendant's claim as the share of profit or loss due to the termination of the business relationship in this court is exchangedly changed, so only the changed counterclaim claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff is a director of M Co., Ltd. (trade name after the change: N. hereinafter “M”) who operates landscaping planting business, etc., and is engaged in landscaping planting business, etc. by registering a personal business entity called “P” in the name of the spouse or his/her spouse.

2) Co-defendant C (former trade name: D Company D; hereinafter “D”) of the first instance trial is a company incorporated on January 8, 2002 for the purpose of landscaping planting business, landscaping facility construction business, etc.

The defendant and his model E have been operated together as D's director and representative director.

3) The F Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Q., Ltd.; hereinafter “F”) is a company established on January 15, 2005 for the purpose of landscaping planting business, landscaping facility installation business, etc.

This private R has been substantially operating F.

4) From among G new apartment construction works, F subcontracted the instant landscaping construction work to the Plaintiff and the Defendant by receiving a contract for the landscaping construction (hereinafter “instant landscaping construction”) from S Co., Ltd.

The Landscaping of this case is with the supply and planting of trees, such as teaching trees and pipes (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tree construction”).