1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The date of August 9, 2005 between the Plaintiff, B Bank and C Bank.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff prepared an additional agreement to determine the governance structure and other matters of I in addition to the instant business agreement with I and the Defendant Bank on August 10, 2005 (hereinafter "the instant additional agreement") in addition to the instant business agreement; and (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, accepted it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "the instant additional agreement" to "the instant business agreement and the instant additional agreement" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The main point of the Plaintiff's argument (the selective claim agreement of this case occurred due to the Defendant Bank's failure to pay interest on the loans, the obligation to arrange, and the loans, or the failure to perform the above obligation due to the Defendant Bank's bankruptcy, and each of the instant agreements was lawfully terminated due to the Plaintiff's notice of termination to the Defendant Bank or the Defendant Bank's failure to reply.

In addition, the nature of each of the instant agreements was mixed with an anonymous association agreement under the Commercial Act or a partnership agreement under the Civil Act. Since both the Defendant banks were declared bankrupt and the grounds for termination of the undisclosed association agreement or the grounds for the withdrawal of union members under the Civil Act have occurred, each of the instant agreements was terminated.

Therefore, the Defendant Bank did not have the right to share 60% of the operating profit under the instant business agreement, or each of the instant agreements was lawfully terminated or terminated, and the Defendants’ litigant asserted this and seek confirmation.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant bank suffered from the defendant bank's lawsuit as to the main defense against the defendant bank's main defense against the defendant bank is liable for damages caused by the defendant bank's failure to perform its duty to lend interest under the business agreement of this case in the original complaint.