1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff decided to invest the Plaintiff’s money in the club business operated by the Defendants in accordance with the Defendants’ proposal, and remitted the amount of KRW 750 million in total to Defendant C’s account, including KRW 40 million on December 27, 201, KRW 100 million on February 28, 2012, KRW 100 million on June 9, 2012, KRW 100 million on October 16, 2012, KRW 50 million on August 5, 2013, and KRW 50 million on August 5, 2013.

B. On July 6, 2012, the Defendants: (a) paid the deposit for lease deposit with the foregoing investment deposit; (b) registered a business operator under the name of the Defendants; and (c) commenced a club with the trade name “E” in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter the instant club) around July 6, 2012.

Business profit of the instant club is a state of hostileity.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant C transferred part of the KRW 50 million out of the KRW 400 million received on December 27, 2011 to its own bank account used for personal purpose, and used it as the Defendant’s living cost.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1 and Eul's 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants’ summary of the assertion are those who are obligated to receive investments from the Plaintiff in accordance with the club investment agreement with the Plaintiff and operate the instant club with the said investments and pay the Plaintiff the principal of the investment and profits therefrom, and are entrusted with the Plaintiff.

The Defendants were paid KRW 750,000,000 to the Plaintiff for the purpose of using the instant club business, and thus, constitute a person who stores the said money that was entrusted for the purpose of using the said money.

However, since the Defendants arbitrarily used KRW 50 million for personal purposes, such as living expenses, among the money remitted on December 27, 2011 without the Plaintiff’s permission, it constitutes embezzlement.

The Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and damages for delay due to tort damages.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff may enter into an investment agreement with the Defendants.