1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim that has been reduced and expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

annex.

1. Basic facts

가. 동업계약의 체결 원고와 피고는 2013. 11. 25. 상호 출자하여 단팥빵 제조판매 사업을 경영하기로 하는 동업계약(이하 ‘이 사건 동업계약’이라 한다)을 체결하고, 그 무렵부터 서울 D역 지하상가에서 ‘E’이라는 상호로 단팥빵 제조판매 점포(이하 ‘이 사건 점포’라 하고, 원고와 피고가 동업계약에 의하여 설립한 조합을 ‘이 사건 조합’이라 한다)를 운영하였다.

B. The instant store was closed on May 21, 2014, and the instant association dissolved around June 10, 2014, when the Plaintiff’s written claim for the dissolution of the partnership was delivered to the Defendant. 2) The instant association did not have any remaining business of the association, other than collecting lease deposit claims, deposit claims, and deposit claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 18, Eul evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims concerning the cause of claims;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant partnership agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to contribute KRW 112,700,000 as lease deposit for the instant store and KRW 30,000 as lease deposit for the instant store, and the Defendant agreed to contribute KRW 128,70,000 as lease deposit for the instant store in addition to the interior cost of the instant store to be invested by the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to contribute KRW 30,00 as the interior cost of the instant store. Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested KRW 128,70,000 as lease deposit amount of KRW 16,00,000, while the Defendant did not contribute to the money agreed to contribute.

However, since the defendant provided labor, but received the price therefor, the defendant cannot be deemed to have invested labor in the union of this case.

Therefore, since the ratio of investment in the instant association is 100% for Defendant 0%: each claim listed in the separate sheet, which is the remaining property, should be reverted to the Plaintiff according to the above ratio of investment.

The plaintiff.