1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff jointly operated the Internet shopping mall in the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) by investing half of the money with the Defendant, and entered into a partnership agreement with the effect that the profits would be distributed, the Plaintiff agreed that the shares in the partnership agreement shall be 1/2, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade agreement,” and the association formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant through the said trade agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant association”). B.

According to the instant business contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated the shopping mall in this case by investing 1/2 from January 2015 to purchase goods, etc., but there was a dispute over the distribution of profits around June 2015.

C. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the effect that “if there is a difference of opinion in the process of operating the shopping mall of this case, the Plaintiff would pay the settlement of accounts following the termination of the instant agreement,” and reached the Defendant around that time.

Accordingly, around June 16, 2015, the Defendant sent a certificate of content to the effect that “if the Plaintiff does not present a statement of settlement accompanied by evidentiary documents, such as the list of residual assets of the instant association by June 30, 2015, the Defendant would dispose of the remaining goods of the instant association in custody at will, at that time, the Plaintiff reached the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2's evidence 1, 2, and Eul 1's evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the shopping mall in this case was operated jointly with the Defendant according to the instant trade agreement, but the trust relationship between the original Defendant was broken and the smooth operation of the association could not be entered. Thus, the instant association was dissolved.

Since the defendant holds goods equivalent to KRW 4,290,530 in relation to the operation of the shopping mall of this case, the defendant shall distribute the remaining assets after dissolution of the association of this case to the plaintiff as a distribution of remaining assets of KRW 2,145,265.