1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from July 8, 2014, and Defendant C.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff’s representative director D knew of the Defendants at a golf-related gathering around 2009, as a company aimed at manufacturing and selling electronic equipment. The Defendants jointly operated “E” from around 201 to around 201 as seen below.

On September 23, 2011, Defendant C entered into an entrustment contract with F Co., Ltd. and E for the management of store operation (hereinafter “E”). Defendant B, upon the recommendation of Defendant C, invested KRW 230 million in connection with the “E” franchise business, and jointly operated the “E” franchise store (hereinafter “E franchise store”).

Defendant B transferred the instant franchise license to a third party at KRW 300 million, around August 2012.

Defendant B’s complaint and as a result, around August 2014, Defendant B filed a complaint with Defendant C with the suspicion that “300 million won of the purchase price of the instant franchise store was arbitrarily consumed and embezzled without Defendant B’s consent,” but the investigation agency decided on July 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings are asserted by the parties concerned, upon the request of the defendants, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff invested KRW 150 million in the franchise store of this case and obtained 1/2 shares, and the defendants did not distribute operating profits to the plaintiff, and since the defendants transferred the franchise store of this case to a third party without the plaintiff's consent, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the money claimed as compensation for losses due to the impossibility of performance of the investment contract, or she is obligated to pay to the plaintiff.

The Defendants asserted that Defendant B was the Plaintiff and transferred all shares of KRW 100 million, and thereafter, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant C exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, and Defendant C should return all the said investments.