1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2013, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendants, operated the “E” entertainment room located in Incheon (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “instant entertainment room”), and closed the instant entertainment room around July of the same year.

B. The Plaintiff’s opening of the instant entertainment room is as of May 29, 2013.

6.3. Defendant B remitted a total of KRW 48,00,000 to Defendant B. After the closure of the instant amusement room, Defendant B remitted part of the price for the disposal of the amusement room and machinery in the future of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendants were operating the entertainment room in this case with the Defendants initially. This is because the Plaintiff believed that the Defendants were to contribute KRW 30,000,000 to each of the Defendants, and that the Defendants were to contribute KRW 50,000,000.

However, unlike the Plaintiff’s promise, the Defendants did not invest KRW 30,000,000 each in the course of operating the entertainment room of this case. If the Plaintiff had known of such fact, the Defendants did not participate in the same business with the Defendants from the beginning. Therefore, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 investments due to the Defendants’ unlawful deception.

Therefore, as joint tortfeasor, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion prior to the determination is based on the premise that the Defendants agreed to contribute KRW 30,000,000 each in the course of the same kind of business as to the entertainment room of this case with respect to the establishment of tort liability due to the Defendants’ deception, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Even based on the statement No. 2, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants with the same factual basis as the cause of the instant claim, but it is difficult to recognize the falsity.