The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), with the exception of the determination of additional claims as to the newly added selective claims under paragraph 2 (2) (the judgment as to the selective claims).

A. The plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff, demanded dissolution of a partnership under the Civil Act composed of the plaintiff, the defendant, C, and D by the lawsuit of this case, and accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return the patent application cost paid by the plaintiff as the settlement amount.

B. A partnership agreement between the parties to the judgment with the purport that both parties shall jointly establish and operate a stock company and jointly manage the company according to the share ratio is premised on the joint business of both parties in the name of the stock company and in accordance with the legal principles of the stock company in external relations and internal relations. Therefore, liquidation of the agreement shall also be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Act on the liquidation of the stock company. Thus, unless liquidation procedures are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Act on the liquidation of the stock company as long as the company is established and its substance is in accordance with such agreement, one party is not entitled to receive the remaining property (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da84381, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.). As seen in the basic facts, as seen above, the plaintiff, the defendant, C, and D concluded the partnership agreement with the purport of establishing a corporation in the form of the Commercial Act for the commercialization of certification code around February 6, 2015.

Ultimately, partners, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, concluded the instant partnership agreement on the premise that joint business was conducted in the name of the corporation and based on the legal principles of the corporation in external relations and internal relations.

It is reasonable to see that the instant company was established and its substance was established.