1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties (1) The plaintiff A is the actual representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), which is engaged in aggregate extraction business, and the plaintiff B and C are the same children and children of each plaintiff A.

(2) Around September 2001, the Defendant invested KRW 100 million in each of the Plaintiff, etc. with the Plaintiff, etc., and engaged in the same business in E’s name. After the completion of the aggregate extraction project in 2009, the Defendant filed a civil suit, complaint, tax office petition, etc. against the Plaintiffs for several years on the grounds that the Plaintiffs embezzled sales proceeds of aggregate without distributing profits.

B. The first civil lawsuit proceedings (1) filed a lawsuit against four persons, including E, F, Plaintiff A, and B (of these, withdrawals from the lawsuit around November 201) with the Daegu District Court 2009Gahap1493, the Defendant sought reimbursement of KRW 309,378,782 equivalent to the Defendant’s share out of net income 928,136,348 from the same business. The first instance court rendered a judgment against the Defendant in its entirety on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the profit from the business was generated.

(2) Although the Defendant appealed as Daegu High Court No. 2012Na595, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal in the second instance, which became final and conclusive on March 5, 2013.

C. The second civil procedure proceedings (1) filed a lawsuit against G Co., Ltd., H, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, etc. with the Daegu District Court 2013Gahap638, and where the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds by depositing KRW 3,834,887,70 collected aggregate sales proceeds into his own account instead of depositing them into the account of E, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 500 million. The first instance court rendered a judgment against the Defendant in its entirety on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge embezzlement.

(2) The Defendant appealed under Daegu High Court Decision 2014Na308, but withdrawn the appeal on June 30, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 7, 2014.

(1) The first accusation case: the Defendant did not distribute the sales proceeds of aggregate to the Plaintiff A to its partners.