1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition or dismissal. Thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The following parts shall be added to 6th 10 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

【4) The Defendant asserts that the amount should be deducted from the instant revenue, since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 40,766,861 from March 12, 2011 to March 1, 2013.

From March 12, 2011 to March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who received a total of 40,766,861 won from the Defendant’s K Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff as a revenue under the instant partnership agreement (the head of office 9), and the amount should be deducted from the instant revenue, so the Defendant’s above assertion is with merit.

As follows, the court of first instance 8th to 20 pages 1 and 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance c) against this, the court of first instance asserts that if the plaintiff returns the settlement amount due to the withdrawal from the partnership relationship of this case due to the cumulative decrease of the number of newborns, the registrar of this case cannot be operated, and that the plaintiff can not unilaterally withdraw from the partnership relationship of this case at a time disadvantageous to the plaintiff. When the term of the association is not determined by the partnership agreement, each member may withdraw at any time, but may not withdraw from the partnership at any time without any inevitable reason (Article 716(1) of the Civil Act), and the agreement of this case shall not be withdrawn from the partnership at a disadvantage of the union without any inevitable reason (Article 716(1) of the Civil Act), as seen above, there is no provision on the term of the association agreement of this case, according to the statement in Eul evidence 7, 2013, a total of 257 persons (cancellation 36) in the year 2013, 2015 persons cancelled.