1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On September 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a contract in the attached Form as to both parties’ rights and duties in operating a danran bar located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D as a club business.

The Plaintiff contributed funds, such as lease deposit, interior material cost, liquor cost, rent, etc., or issued credit cards and passbooks, etc. necessary for the main business to the Defendants. The Defendants were in charge of the actual operation of the said main business.

The operation of the above main point was completed at the end of February 2015, while it was suffering from business depression, etc.

(A) According to evidence Nos. 8-3, the Plaintiff appears to have received the return of the remaining security deposit and the fixed time facility after deducting the unpaid rent from the lessor on September 2015. (See evidence No. 8-3, the Plaintiff is deemed to have received the return of the remaining security deposit and the fixed time facility (including the partial number of units))

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not comply with the settlement of sales income on the last day of each month in violation of Articles 3 and 7 of the Attached Contract, and that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s money by using the Plaintiff’s credit card at will or withdrawing cash from the Plaintiff’s passbook without permission. In the event of damages arising from the breach of the said business contract, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants a partial claim of KRW 50 million and damages for delay as part of the amount invested by the Plaintiff.

(A) On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff’s application for the change of the cause of claim on December 21, 2015 merely reduced the amount while maintaining the cause of claim for damages in violation of the agreement on the same business, and thus, is not deemed a preliminary claim in a lawsuit. The legitimacy of the claim is examined. ① The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendants as an occupational embezzlement based on the facts similar to the said cause of claim (Evidence A 4-1, 2) but the investigative agency issued a disposition to the effect that the Defendants were suspected of being suspected on June 30, 2015 after examining relevant evidentiary materials and statements, and ② the statement of Evidence A7 alone without justifiable grounds.