1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding a counterclaim, the plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant) who has exceeded the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification and addition as follows.

[This Court’s argument and evidence, including the testimony of the witnessO and W, are examined as follows, it is reasonable to make the first instance judgment with the exception of the following modifications. The plaintiff asserts that this court continues to operate EMel and Felel and N as a partnership with the defendant. However, the defendant denies a partnership. The defendant bears the burden of proving such partnership, and it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence submitted to this court up to this court had a partnership with the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff in relation to the above Eel, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a partnership between the defendant and the defendant. Although the plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not prepare a partnership between South and North Korea, even if it is asserted that the situation and evidence submitted by the plaintiff without any objective evidence such as the agreement on the partnership, it is difficult to recognize a partnership, and even if the plaintiff did not prepare objective evidence such as the agreement on the partnership, the disadvantage arising therefrom is borne by the plaintiff [the plaintiff’s testimony and testimony of the defendant's O as evidence, it is difficult to acknowledge the plaintiff's testimony and testimony of the defendant 600's testimony.

Furthermore, at the time of the first filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff runs a partnership business with the Eelher and the Felher.