1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the instant letter of undertaking, the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 1/3 of the cost of performing duties paid by a union on condition that the recruitment ratio of union members exceeds 50% of the total number of household units. Since the conditions were fulfilled as of December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 1,497,64,190 equivalent to 1/3 of the cost of performing duties, 49,214,730,730 won, which is the amount calculated by deducting KRW 1,531,124,621 from the cost of performing duties as of December 30, 2016.

B. Defendant (1) The instant undertaking is invalid because it is forged and void. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the said undertaking is without merit.

(2) Even if the instant letter of undertaking was not forged, the Plaintiff, as it received the return of investment money from around September 2015 to withdraw from the partnership relationship, was not entitled to claim profits based on the instant letter of undertaking.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff did not withdraw from the business relationship, the agreement on the allocation of profits based on the instant promise is premised on the actual occurrence of profit. As such, the obligation to settle the profit and pay the debt amount as operating expenses and financing costs did not actually generate profit in excess of the profit.

3. Determination

A. Although there is no evidence to acknowledge the forgery of the instant promise, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the corporate seal affixed to the instant promise was stolen.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 18, the above commitment is accompanied by the defendant's certificate of corporate seal impression, business balance analysis table, and the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff as the charge of forging private document related to the above commitment, but the non-prosecution disposition was rendered due to lack of evidence.