1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The first instance court, within the scope of the judgment of this court, dismissed the principal claim, and partly accepted the claim for the distribution of the residual property following the dissolution of the business among the selective claims for counterclaim.

Accordingly, since only the Defendant appealed against part of the part against the Defendant regarding the claim for distribution of remaining assets among the counterclaim, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order of correction to correct the stamp although the Plaintiff filed an appeal and the incidental appeal, and both the petition of appeal and the incidental appeal were dismissed by this court.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit and the part concerning the claim for consolation money among counterclaims are separately confirmed, and only the part concerning the claim for distribution of remaining property among counterclaims of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the part of the “additional Judgment” that the Defendant considers as follows with respect to the assertion added by this court is added between 8, 8 and 9 of the judgment of first instance; (b) the part of the “additional Decision” which the Defendant considers as follows is added to 8, 8, and 9 of the judgment of first instance; (c) each of the “the Defendant’s investment claim against the Defendant” in 8, 10, and 9, 16 of the judgment of first instance, “the damage claim against the Defendant on the ground of a non-performance of the investment obligation against the Defendant”; (d) the “contribution claim against the Defendant” in 9, 13, 9, 10, 10, 10, 5, 50,000 won “51,751,696 won” is added to “the grounds for the judgment of first instance,” and thus, citing this as is, pursuant

3. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the investment claim against the union members should not be included in the active property of the trade union of this case.

Where a partner has agreed to assume an investment obligation under a business agreement, etc. but fails to comply with it, all the other partners have the right to claim the performance of the investment against the partner.