1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2014, the Plaintiffs, as married couple, operated a child clothes store (18 square meters) in the name of “D” in the Busan Shipping Unit, concluded a verbal club agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, who had been operating a restaurant (60 square meters) in Ulsan E at the time of Ulsan, to enter into a business of importing and selling children’s clothes with G stores, and to newly open and operate the Defendant’s store as H stores, and to operate the Defendant’s store as H stores. The Plaintiffs, who were well aware of the sale of children’s clothes, were fully operating the said stores, and the profits from each of the above stores were 50 percent divided by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant club agreement”).

B. After that, the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiffs, invested KRW 30 million in total in the instant project, such as remitting KRW 30 million to I as the membership fee of franchise stores on February 19, 2014, KRW 50 million as the purchase fee of goods on March 11, 2014, KRW 50 million to Plaintiff B on March 21, 2014, KRW 50 million as the purchase price of goods, and KRW 30 million on March 25, 2014, KRW 120 million as of May 2, 2014, and KRW 30 million in total in the instant project. The Plaintiffs commenced the business of G stores and H stores on May 4, 2014.

However, from June 2014 to June 2014, disputes arose between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant regarding the burden of cost, such as cost of purchase of goods, use of investment funds, operation and management of each store of this case. Ultimately, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs should bear 50% of the project funds, such as cost of purchase of goods, and demanded the return of money used by the Plaintiffs for purposes other than cost of purchase of goods.

On August 2014, the Plaintiffs paid only KRW 50 million to the Defendant with the remainder remaining after being used as the purchase cost of each of the instant stores, the interior expenses, the wages of employees, etc. from the investment funds received from the Defendant during the mid-term police officer.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on April 15, 2016, objection.