1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. Upon the claims added by this Court, Defendant B shall:

1. In the first instance court, the plaintiff primarily requested the return of the investment amount to the defendants, ② the claim for the settlement amount and the settlement amount before the withdrawal from the association, which was made at the time of the withdrawal from the association to the defendants, ③ the claim for retirement allowance against the defendant B. The court of first instance dismissed the main claim against the defendants and the claim for retirement allowance against the defendant B. In the preliminary claim, the claim for the settlement amount due to the withdrawal from the association to the defendants was partly accepted, and the remainder was dismissed, and the claim for the settlement amount before the withdrawal from the association to the court of first instance was dismissed.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance only to ① the primary claim, ② the preliminary claim, ③ the part of the claim for the payment before withdrawal, and ③ the part of the claim for retirement allowance against the defendant B, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the second of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the claims added by the plaintiff in this court as follows.

subsection (1)(b) and 2-b) of paragraph (1).

(b) paragraphs (1) and 3-2 of this paragraph.

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. Judgment on the claim that the plaintiff added to the court

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was KRW 20,000,000 for the premium to be paid to Defendant B. Therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendant C, respectively, borne KRW 5,000,000 for each of the KRW 5,000,000 for the premium to be paid to Defendant B.

However, Defendant B actually paid KRW 5,000,000 as premium to D.

In other words, Defendant B has invested only KRW 70,000,000 which is less than KRW 50,000,000, which is equivalent to the investment ratio of 50% of the partnership agreement in order to take unfair profits in the amount of money without paying KRW 20,00,000.

As such, Defendant B.