1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2016, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to jointly operate the restaurant “E” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) by investing their respective funds.

The Plaintiffs delegated most of the preparatory affairs for opening the instant restaurant to the Defendant.

B. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs, at the Defendant’s request, remitted the sum of KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s Defendant’s account, including KRW 130 million from May 11, 2016 to June 3, 2016, and KRW 150 million from May 3, 2016 to June 3, 2016.

F Co., Ltd. is a man-made corporation in which the defendant registered his wife as a director and actually operated his wife.

C. In order to open the restaurant of this case, the Defendant performed the duties of shop lease, interior works, purchase and installation of kitchen equipment and air conditioners, purchase of various equipment, installation of fire-fighting and gas facilities, advertisement contracts, administrative affairs, etc., and also performed expenses.

The instant restaurant opened on June 3, 2016 and started its business from that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), Eul 1 through 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination Plaintiffs asserted that since the Defendant, while receiving KRW 150 million as the interior work price of the restaurant of this case and being kept in custody, all of them were consumed and embezzled for personal purposes, the profits acquired unfairly should be returned to the Plaintiffs KRW 150 million.

In light of each description (including the serial number) of lives and Eul 1 through 15 (the contract amount related to the interior construction of the restaurant of this case exceeds KRW 150 million, and the contract amount is at least KRW 118,800,000,000,000,000 for the other party to the contract) the defendant is a de facto operator of the corporation F, or evidence 1 to 5.