1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs and D agreed to carry on a partnership business (hereinafter “instant partnership business”) at the rate of 1/3 of each of the 1/3 of their respective shares and profits distribution, with the Plaintiff’s contribution and D’s operation of the above factory as a cycle of various duties related thereto. The Plaintiffs and D agreed to carry on a partnership business (hereinafter “instant partnership business”).

B. Accordingly, on August 20, 2010, Plaintiff A and D entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant maintenance plant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between KRW 35,000,000, monthly rent 4,500,000, and the lease period from August 20, 2010 to August 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. The instant maintenance plant was registered under the name of the Defendant and was mainly deposited with the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant bank account”). D. The income of the instant maintenance plant was deposited.

D on August 6, 2011, Plaintiff B withdrawn from the instant partnership and operated the instant maintenance plant, and around May 8, 2012, the instant maintenance plant was virtually closed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs in the Joint Unlawful Act with D allegedly asserted 1D, and D, from August 20, 201, to August 6, 2011, should pay to the Plaintiffs 1/3 of the earnings from the same business accrued from the instant trade from August 20, 201.

During the above period, the revenue of the instant maintenance plant is KRW 572,027,00, and the expenditure is KRW 123,200,000, and net revenue is KRW 448,827,002, and among them, the revenue corresponding to KRW 1/3,00, which is the interest of the plaintiffs, is KRW 149,609,001.

Therefore, D is obligated to pay each of the above profits to the plaintiffs with 60 million won and damages for delay as claimed by the plaintiffs, and the non-payment of these amounts constitutes tort.

However, the defendant is D.