The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

The reason why our court should explain this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the

[Plaintiff asserted that this case's partnership relation was not terminated because there is no "inevitable reason" in the court below's request for dissolution. However, in light of the fact that from May 2014, the Defendant paid the closure of the place of business of this case to the date of its payment, the Plaintiff did not operate water-related leisure business in the place of business of this case on behalf of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff discussed a monetary settlement plan on the premise of termination of the relationship with the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, instead of operating water-related leisure business in the place of this case, the Plaintiff cannot expect the smooth operation of the place of business of this case on the premise of the termination of the relationship with the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant's request for dissolution is justifiable. Furthermore, in case of dissolution of the association, if each member remains in the place of business without any remaining remaining assets after the cooperative's separate settlement procedure, without any need for separate liquidation procedure, each member can immediately claim a distribution of remaining assets within the scope of its residual assets (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da47084, Oct. 11, 201, 201).