2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of the Defendant and Asan City CPC (hereinafter “instant PC”), agreed to pay the Defendant an investment amount of KRW 60 million to the Defendant at the time of termination of the partnership relationship, and the Defendant unilaterally disposed of the instant PC and terminated the partnership relationship, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to refund the investment amount of KRW 60 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he terminated the partnership contract concluded with the plaintiff due to the act of embezzlement of public funds by the plaintiff, and that he agreed with the defendant to not refund the plaintiff's investment money when the partnership contract is terminated due to embezzlement of

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant received an investment amount of KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff and entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to jointly operate the instant PC from around August 2013 (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). According to each of the evidence Nos. 1-1 and evidence Nos. 6, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,50,000 to the Defendant’s account on July 12, 2013 and July 16, 2013, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 60,50,000 to the instant PC on December 10, 2015 is recognized.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly enter into a contract for all businesses from August 15, 2013 with respect to the PC business in this case, and all the liabilities for the business shall depend on their equity ratio: Provided, That when public funds are embezzled, "the PC operating contract shall not be refunded in full at the time of termination of the contract for the same business," and signed and sealed each contract (the date of preparation but it seems that the contract for the same business in this case was made after the conclusion of the contract for the same business in this case). The plaintiff and the defendant embezzled public funds on August 22, 2015.