1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of witness D’s testimony and arguments, six parties, including the Plaintiffs, Defendant, and Nonparty E, D, and F, purchased land located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) on or around April 2012, and entered into a joint investment agreement with the intent to newly build and lease neighborhood living facilities on the ground (hereinafter “instant association agreement”) and appoint the Defendant as a manager. Under the said association agreement, Plaintiff A may be recognized as having invested a total of KRW 132 million between September 26, 2012 and December 4, 2012, and Plaintiff B, from September 26, 2012 to December 21, 2012 (the sum of investments in the instant land).

2. Determination on the cause of the claim and its related matters

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion, E, D, and F expressed their intention to withdraw from the partnership against the defendant on August 31, 2013, and the defendant, the only remaining member, is to pay the settlement amount for the plaintiffs' shares at the time of withdrawal. If calculating the above settlement amount, the plaintiff A is 106,362,506 won, and the plaintiff B is 44,317,711 won, and the defendant is obligated to pay each corresponding amount to the plaintiffs.

B. The Plaintiffs’ assertion of determination is based on the premise that five members, other than the Defendant, expressed their intent to withdraw from the partnership on August 31, 2013, and thus, this is first examined.

Witness

According to D’s testimony, the members of the instant association agreement were originally members of the public study group related to real estate conducted by Nonparty H, and did not have much experience in the new construction and lease business of the building. However, as the construction and lease business of the instant building was conducted, more costs were incurred than the initial one, and there was a conflict of opinion between the Defendant and the remaining members, who are managers, as well as the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.