1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport. A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

In 2013, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendants, tried to purchase the Gyeongbuk-gun I Factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) in KRW 110 million.

At the time, there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the Plaintiff should pay the purchase price of the instant plant, but did not constitute a circumstance for the Plaintiff to bear the total amount.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million out of the purchase price to Defendant B on December 23, 2013, to ensure that part of the purchase price is paid.

With respect to the payment of the remainder of KRW 80 million, Defendant C loaned KRW 30 million from the financial institution on April 30, 2014 after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the factory of this case from the seller in advance on March 31, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was prepared and paid by the Defendants to the seller.

C. However, the Plaintiff repaid all of Defendant C’s loans of KRW 30 million on behalf of the Defendants. On May 17, 2014, after the purchase of the instant plant, the Plaintiff delivered cash of KRW 6 million to the Defendants. On October 31, 2014, the Committee transferred the cash of KRW 10150,000 to the F account, which is his/her father, and on November 10, 2014, returned KRW 20,000,000,000 to the Defendants, which was partially paid for the instant factory purchase fund.

According to such repayment, the Plaintiff bears 80 million won out of the total purchase fund of the instant factory (i.e., KRW 30 million from the remittance amount of KRW 30 million from December 23, 2013 to the Defendant’s loan subrogation repayment of KRW 30 million from the amount of the Defendant’s factory purchase fund of KRW 30 million from the amount of the Defendants’ factory purchase fund of KRW 20 million, which the Plaintiff returned, thereby securing the corresponding shares (8/11).

E. Ultimately, in full view of the overall financial burden and purchase process of the instant factory, the Plaintiff intended to directly use the instant factory under its name, but can be said to have its name.