The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the party to the instant trade agreement was the Plaintiff.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the confirmation of parties to a partnership agreement, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, this part of the grounds of appeal are the purport that the Plaintiff, who is not a party to the instant partnership agreement, cannot title trust the instant dispute to D, a non-member of the partnership, on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant partnership agreement, and as long as the association member D withdraws from the instant partnership, the instant dispute share belongs to B, the Plaintiff erred in the judgment of the court below that held that the Plaintiff held that all or part of the instant dispute share to D and B were title trust in sequential order.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as the lower court did not err in its judgment by deeming the parties to the instant agreement as the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s ground of appeal on a different premise is without merit without further examining.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cause of the instant dispute’s transfer from the name D to B was the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and B, and that the cause of the transfer was the gift agreement between the Plaintiff and B.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on title trust and donation, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.