1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be co-defendant B and C of the first instance trial.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment is identical to the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing the reasoning in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The instant business contract is a partnership that operates the instant securities brokerage business (hereinafter “instant securities brokerage business”).

) It was concluded with the Plaintiff, and since the contract period on November 16, 2013 expired, the Defendant, a partner of the Plaintiff, jointly and severally with B and C, who is the Plaintiff. 2,50 million won (hereinafter “instant business bonds”).

(2) Even if the Defendant is not a member, as the Defendant consented to use the Defendant’s name in relation to the operation of the instant securities brokerage business by taking over the shares of the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant and registering joint business operators, etc., the Defendant should jointly and severally return the instant business bonds to B and C pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. Defendant 1) Since the instant business contract is a contract concluded between the Plaintiff and B, the instant business bond return obligation is an individual debt of B. The instant securities transaction obligation is not the instant securities transaction obligation. (2) The Defendant is merely receiving C’s equity interest in the instant securities transaction business entity, and the lease deposit repayment obligation of the instant securities transaction obligation for the security. The instant securities transaction obligation is not a member of the instant securities transaction business entity, because it does not have any participation in the management of the securities transaction business entity or there is no distribution of profit.

3) Since the business contract of this case with the purport that the Plaintiff independently carries out the photograph and video photographing business and distributes the photographing amount to the Plaintiff at a certain ratio can be seen as a partnership business contract, the Plaintiff also becomes a member of the instant securities brokerage business, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request against the rest of the members. 4)