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

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the first instance judgment is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim added by this court is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except for addition of the judgment specified in paragraph (2) below; and (b) thereby, the same is acceptable by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant agreement on the same trade has ceased to be performed after January 24, 2017, when the Defendant discontinued his/her business, and the Plaintiff thereafter disbursed KRW 49,54,000 in total for the instant commercial building. The Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 24,772,00 for the settlement of accounts equivalent to 50% among them.

B. As seen earlier, the instant partnership agreement is null and void in violation of mandatory law, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of settlement amount upon the termination of the above partnership agreement is without merit on the premise that the above partnership agreement is valid.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff's claim is deemed as a claim for return of unjust enrichment or a claim for damages based on a tort, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the damage was caused to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim added by this court should be dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance as to the main claim is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the additional conjunctive claim