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

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

purport, purport, and.

The first instance court accepted part of the claim of the principal lawsuit against the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim settlement claim, and dismissed all the counterclaim claims.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed on the part of the counterclaim claim of the first instance judgment, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning is as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the same.

(However, the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit excluded from the scope of the trial in this Court). The height portion is as follows: "Sale was made five under the table of the third top part," "as sold, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in that name on July 20, 2012."

From 7 pages 2 to 7, "no evidence exists" shall be raised as follows.

In full view of the facts and circumstances revealed in Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 9, 11, 12, and 13, part of witness X testimony of this court, and the result of the submission of financial transaction information to Y organizations by the court of first instance, as well as the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to conduct a partnership business with the intention to distribute profits earned from the purchase, development, and disposal of the real estate of this case by one-half, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim, which is premised on the above business operation agreement, is not reasonable.

1. According to the Defendant’s assertion, a partnership agreement between the original Defendant provides that the Plaintiff purchased real estate by fully bearing the purchase fund of the real estate, and sales profits from the disposal of the real estate shall be distributed by the original Defendant one-half, but the Defendant does not contribute the purchase fund or share the expenses or losses.

However, according to the above business agreement, the Plaintiff first purchased real estate from August 2008 to the present.