beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1.In the absence of dispute, the following facts shall be free to dispute between the parties:
(1) Although Defendant D and Plaintiff were co-defendants of this case, the decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on May 9, 2015 in the trial.
the first time in 2004 to open a screen game room.
(B) A co-defendant, as in the wife C B, was a co-defendant, but the decision of recommending settlement became final and conclusive on May 9, 2015, and the decision of recommending settlement became final and conclusive. (2) The Plaintiff decided to participate in the same business in the game room and invested KRW 110,000,000 in total (hereinafter “instant investment”) by April 10, 2004.
(3) On May 2004, the screen game room (hereinafter “instant game room”) was opened in M in the Silung-si.
(A) there is a dispute as to the date of the opening. (b)
C On May 10, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 400,000,000 to the Plaintiff for a monthly interest of KRW 20,000,000, borrowed from Doz in order to raise the instant investment funds.
C. On May 11, 2004, the Plaintiff received a refund of KRW 30,000,000 out of the instant investment funds.
(2) From the account of Defendant E, February 17, 2005, KRW 5,000,000, and
3. November 5, 190,000 won, and the same year.
5. 23.5,100,000 won, and the same year.
5. 31. 10,000,000 won was remitted to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) (a) the plaintiff's assertion (a) (a) was recommended by Dong C and agreed to participate in the same business as a screen game room in which the defendants and B and C prepared for the opening of business.
The husband F decided to jointly operate the game room on behalf of the plaintiff.
(B) The game of this case was opened in the first order on May 2004.
After that, Defendants, B, and C opposed to the participation in the operation of the game room in the game room.
Accordingly, the plaintiff decided to withdraw from the partnership business.
In addition to the return of the instant investment money, the Defendants are different in order for the Plaintiff to raise the money.