1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff (appointed party) emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion that the resolution of dissolution of the instant association and the termination of the instant contract for participation is null and void. 2) Even if the instant association is dissolved or the instant contract for participation is null and void, since the instant contract for participation is the substance of a partnership, the relationship between the instant association and the Defendant constitutes an association under the Civil Act, and the transfer price of business rights under the instant transfer contract is KRW 20.3 billion.

However, since the partnership between the union and the defendant of this case was dissolved upon the termination of the participation contract of this case, the association of this case has a right to claim the distribution of residual property following the dissolution of the association.

Therefore, the defendant should settle part of the transfer price of 20.3 billion won to the union of this case.

B. Judgment 1) Even if each evidence presented in the first instance court and each of the evidence presented in this court was presented to the court, the resolution of the dissolution of the association of this case and the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court that the termination of the contract of this case is valid is recognized as legitimate. 2) And in a lawsuit for collection, the existence of the claim for collection is a requirement and the burden of proof is borne by

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476 Decided June 11, 2015). Each part of the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 5 are merely a partnership agreement between the instant association and the Defendant inasmuch as the substance of the instant participation agreement is a partnership agreement under the Civil Act.

The transfer price of business rights under the transfer contract of this case is not sufficient to recognize the transfer price of 20.3 billion won as its business property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.