1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim for damages added by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is the same as the stated in the first instance court's reasoning, except for addition as stated in paragraph (2) below.

2. The addition;

A. On the third and nine sides of the judgment of the court of first instance in supplement of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be added:

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant had embezzled 441,797,952 of the operating earnings of the instant building by arbitrarily consuming 441,79,952 while the Plaintiff and the Defendant operated the Car Center and the Deputy Director in the instant building. The Prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition on April 29, 2019 without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

A evidence No. 13 shall be added to the 3th judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition) of the 10th judgment.

Part 7 of the Decision of the Court of First Instance shall add the following:

The plaintiff was engaged only in the business of the defendant and the third secretary, and even if the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was actually terminated on or around May 2015, it should be viewed that the plaintiff continued to exist until the time the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary of the third secretary

However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff operated the defendant and the vice-general of this case as a partnership business in May 2015, and the defendant operated the above vice-general in his own around that time. However, if one member withdraws from a partnership, the partnership relation is terminated, but the partnership is not dissolved, and the property belonging to the partnership members belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining member, and the existing joint business continues to exist without undergoing the liquidation procedure.