1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. In the judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of appeal and summary of the claim, the plaintiff won all the primary claims out of the purport of the claim, and lost the claim.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the claim against the Plaintiff, the first instance court argued to the effect that the “instant real estate” was low in relation to the primary claim for the claim, and that the said claim should be evaluated again as a basis for the closing of argument in the appellate trial.

B. The grounds for appeal against a claim that won the entire winning the claim are without expanding the purport of the claim itself, and cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

In the case of a partnership relationship with two persons, that is, where one of them withdraws, the calculation between the withdrawing partner and the other union members shall be based on the partnership's property status as at the time of withdrawal pursuant to Article 719 (1) of the Civil Code. Therefore, in calculating the shares, the base date for evaluating the shares shall be deemed as at the

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da19208 delivered on September 6, 1996, etc.). The result of the entrustment to I by the court of first instance is that the Plaintiff assessed the market price of “the instant real estate” as of October 12, 2016 near the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the partnership on December 9, 2016, and there is no ground to deem that the current market price was low. However, the Plaintiff’s additional assertion for appraisal or evidence No. 19 submitted by this court was that the value of “the instant real estate” was re-calculated or calculated as of the time when a considerable period of time has elapsed from the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the partnership, and all of it is not acceptable.

C. With respect to the claim, the Plaintiff failed to prove the claim additionally.

The judgment of the court of first instance to the same purport is insufficient to recognize the assertion of the claim by the evidence of this case, such as evidence No. 3.