2. B

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs, the defendant, the D, E, and F agree to the land in Pyeongtaek-gun of Gangwon-do by investing each amount in around 2005 in a fraudulent manner. The plaintiffs, the plaintiffs 50,00,000,000 won, the defendant 100,000,000 won, D's 50,000,000 won, and E's 50,000,000,000 won, and 1) the defendant purchased from G on July 6, 2005 each part of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real property of this case") from the defendant on July 6, 2005, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on July 7, 2005.

B. However, the funds invested by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, D, E, and F could not be paid the full payment of the above sales amount solely on the basis of the funds invested by them. Accordingly, around July 27, 2005, the Defendant borrowed KRW 110,000,000 from the combination of the common agricultural co-operation assistance with the instant real estate as security and appropriated the said loans for the sales amount.

C. Meanwhile, while jointly purchasing the instant real estate, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, D, E, and F drafted a land trading performance note (hereinafter “instant performance note”) with the following contents.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On January 24, 2008, the plaintiffs and D completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage against the debtor, the maximum debt amount of 190,000,000, and the debtor as to the real estate in this case.

E. Thereafter, F transferred its shares to the remaining investors, and E transferred its shares to the Defendant.

F. The Plaintiffs paid interest on the loans that the Defendant received from the Chang-gu Agricultural Cooperative to the Defendant each month, and the Plaintiffs did not pay interest from June 2013.

G. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant repaid the full amount of the above loans to the Pyeongtaek Agricultural Cooperative around the same day.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including Serials for those with Serials), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

F transferred its own shares to the remaining investors, and E transferred its shares to the Defendant, thereby holding 1/5 shares in each of the Plaintiffs and D, and 2/5 shares in each of the Defendant, and the Defendant refused to pay interest corresponding to the rate of interest that the borrower would bear only the same rate of interest as that of other investors. In addition, since the value of the real estate mentioned above is not lower than the value, it is not easy to sell it as the initial purchase price, and the Defendant refused to sell each Do even if the buyer requested difficulties thereafter, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the termination of the investment contract and requested the return of the investment amount.

Even if the time of return of investment amount was determined at the time of two times the purchase price increase pursuant to Article 3, the sale of the real estate of this case at two times the price was actually impossible in light of the fact that the plaintiffs invested in the real estate of this case for about ten years after the plaintiffs invested in the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant knew that it was impossible to perform the obligation already around July 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment amount to the Plaintiffs was due to the delay of performance on July 2013. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the Plaintiffs KRW 75,00,000, and KRW 000 ( = the Plaintiffs’ investment principal + KRW 50,00,000, and KRW 25,000,000, and KRW 00).

3. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, after jointly investing each amount of money, to jointly dispose of real estate for all accounts based on the intention of all the co-owners, and then distribute profits. The legal relationship between such buyers is not a simple sharing relationship, but a partnership relationship under the Civil Act. However, such a partnership agreement can only request dissolution of a partnership, withdrawal from a partnership, or expulsion from any other union, and it is not possible to cancel a partnership agreement as in a general contract, and to impose an obligation to reinstate from the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7157, May 13, 1994). Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion seeking the return of invested money is not acceptable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1. 1,812 square meters prior to the ○○○○, Seogyeong-gun, Gangwon-do;

2. The end shall be 10,453 square meters prior to the △△△△, Seog-gun, Sejong-gun, Gangwon-do.