1. The Defendants each of the KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from February 15, 2014 to July 19, 2017.

1. On December 2013, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and D agreed to operate a scambling game business. The Defendants supplied the game machine at a low price. The Defendants each invested KRW 10,000,000,000 with the Plaintiff and D together.

On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendants through the Defendant B’s East E account.

However, there was no progress in the project thereafter.

On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return KRW 30,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the factual basis as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a partnership agreement with the aim of running a business of the cream game business around December 2013, but the said association was dissolved due to the fact that the said business was actually not run around February 2014.

In addition, since the above union's remaining business is deemed to have no other way to dispose of it except for the distribution of remaining assets, the plaintiff can request the defendants to distribute the remaining assets without requiring separate liquidation procedures.

B. We examine the details of residual assets and the amount of the repayment obligation of the union's residual assets.

The plaintiff was found to have delivered KRW 30,000,000 to the defendants.

Defendant B invested KRW 10,00,000 in each of the Defendants. The Plaintiff and the Defendants alleged that all of the investments were used in the purchase of a game machine, but there is no evidence to prove this.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the remaining property of the above union is KRW 30,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s investment.

Furthermore, we examine the amount to be returned by the Defendants.

Any partner who has performed the investment obligation due to the dissolution of the partnership and the absence of a separate liquidation procedure shall be liable to make a contribution to the partnership.