1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operated a refined in Jeonnam-gun C, and the Defendant is a person who was engaged in the production, assembly, etc. of a color screening machine at a mechanical manufacturing company that selects foreign substances and rice with low quality from the rice harvested and dried.

B. Around January 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to operate a business for the development and sale of a color line with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant business”). Around January 2010, the Plaintiff provided capital, and the Defendant provided technology, such as the development and production of a color line.

C. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name “D” in accordance with the instant trade agreement, and opened a corporate bank account in the name of the Plaintiff for the use as the instant business account on the same day.

On the other hand, the plaintiff from January 8, 2010 to the same year in accordance with the business agreement of this case.

8. Until 16. For the project of this case, KRW 235,359,00 in the purport of the claim of KRW 235,00,00 as shown in the separate sheet for the project of this case is cut down and requested by the plaintiff less than one million.

AB invested.

E. D closed on December 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. When concluding the instant partnership agreement, the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s invested principal when the instant partnership agreement is terminated, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s invested principal to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant had a considerable profit during the period of running D, and since the contract of the instant Dong was terminated, the defendant has a duty to settle the plaintiff's investment principal and profit.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts the legal nature of the instant trade agreement under the Commercial Act, but the legal nature of the instant trade agreement is asserted as an anonymous association agreement under the Commercial Act, the evidence and arguments mentioned above.