The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that, except for the following facts: “AC” in Part 7 under the third table of the judgment of the first instance is used as “AC” (hereinafter “AC”); “land” in Part 17 of the fourth part is used as “land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each land of this case”)”; since it is identical to the description in Paragraph 1 among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Considering the process of purchasing each of the lands of this case and the role and proportion of the Plaintiff at the preparation stage of development thereafter, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is the actual purchaser of each of the lands of this case, D, Defendant, AE, AF, AG, and H are merely the mortgagee of the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff

On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant on the distribution of profits from the sale of each of the instant lands (Plaintiff: 1/3, and Defendant: 2/3). The Plaintiff withdraws from the partnership relationship with the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case stating the intent to withdraw. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the profits accrued from the partnership relationship as part of KRW 2,619,93,666, and delay damages therefrom.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence revealed as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 8, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) were included in the evidence Nos. 9, 11, 13, and 21; the testimony of the witness AO of the first instance court; the inquiry of the fact about AP of the first instance court; the result of each court’s order to submit financial transaction information of this case by alone, it is recognized that the plaintiff was the actual purchaser of each land of this case; or the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a trade agreement with the content as alleged by the plaintiff.