1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The part concerning the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance is relevant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the instant agreement was for resale of the right to sell in lots, and the agreement was concluded between the original and the Defendant to terminate within three months from February 2009, and thus, the agreement was terminated on April 30, 2009.

The Plaintiff, from May 2009 to May 201, 2010, declared that the Plaintiff would withdraw from the instant association to return its property to the Defendant, and the Defendant intended to settle the accounts by allowing the Plaintiff to waive its investment funds on or around March 4, 2010. Since the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was destroyed and the smooth joint operation of the association could not be expected at least at the time, the instant partnership agreement was terminated.

Therefore, the defendant should distribute residual property as of the above point of time.

2. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the parties, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are added to the judgment on the new argument presented by the plaintiff in this court as set forth in paragraph (3) below, and the part of the 13th to 17th among the grounds for the judgment of first instance is added to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal as set forth in the following Paragraph (4). Thus, it

3. Judgment on the new argument in this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the date of termination of the business partnership agreement of this case is three months from the actual scheduled date of occupancy of the apartment of this case (the date of the remaining agreement, July 15, 2009), or that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's wife expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the association on behalf of the plaintiff, and that the trust relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was destroyed due to the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant due to anti-reination and thus it is impossible to expect the smooth joint operation of the association.

B.(1) The withdrawal of an association under Article 716 of the Civil Code is to be decided by a specific partner in the future.