1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added 2.2. additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in this court, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff selected at the trial, and the plaintiff, the defendant, M, and N jointly contributed KRW 1 billion to the D building H, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant. Since the D building H is the combination property of the above four investment associations, the defendant, even though the defendant is obligated to sell the price and liquidate the partnership's property by distributing the price according to the internal shares or transferring the ownership of the D building, it refuses the defendant's obligation to liquidate the partnership's property with respect to the plaintiff, M, and N by completing a provisional registration right to claim a provisional registration. The plaintiff, M, and N withdraws from the above association due to the above inevitable reasons, and the defendant acquired the shares of M, N, as the plaintiff's share in the D building H from M, N, the plaintiff's share in the D building H, and therefore, the plaintiff's share in the D building H is 1/2.

The author argues that there is a duty to settle the accounts.

Therefore, only the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was established with respect to D Building H between the Plaintiff, Defendant, M and N, as alleged in its assertion.

It is not sufficient to recognize that H heading of a building or D is the partnership property whose members are plaintiffs, defendants, M and N, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on this point is difficult to accept.

B. On July 10, 2003, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff’s C&C account (R) on July 10, 2003, and the said KRW 500 million from the E’s bank account (S) on the same day.