Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part concerning the set-off defense based on the right to claim distribution of residual property shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

(a) Where the association is dissolved and only the remaining assets remain, without undergoing separate liquidation procedures, each partner may request the association member to distribute its residual assets within the scope of its ratio of distribution, in excess of its ratio of distribution;

In addition, in order to make it possible to make a claim for distribution, it is necessary to first determine the details of the whole residual assets of the union, the legitimate ratio of distribution, and the holding of each member's residual assets.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da35713 delivered on April 21, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30682 delivered on December 8, 2005, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court found the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the N jointly operated “I” at least on September 2012; (b) the Plaintiff and the N transferred the business of “I” to a third party on or around February 2013; (c) received KRW 105,000,000 as premium; and (d) on March 14, 2013, the report on the discontinuance of business as to “I” was completed; (b) the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant renounced its shares in “I” on or around October 2012, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had been given up its shares in “I,” and thus, determined that KRW 105,00,000 as premium received by the Plaintiff and N, while maintaining a three-party partnership relationship.

Then, the lower court determined that since the business of “I” was transferred to a third party and the report on the closure of the business is completed, it is reasonable to view that the association relationship between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the N was dissolved at that time, and that there was no particular dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the remaining business of the association to be treated separately, only the distribution of remaining assets remains. Furthermore, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized the distribution ratio of remaining assets of the Plaintiff and the Defendant as 30%, respectively.