1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from November 25, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and the entire purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a partnership agreement with the plaintiff and the defendants to jointly operate a restaurant on December 4, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant partnership agreement"), according to the instant partnership agreement, the plaintiff invested KRW 50,000,000 as facility investment amount to the defendant Eul. According to Article 5 of the instant partnership agreement, the defendant Eul will return the above facility investment amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff one year after the date of the contract, and the defendant C has a joint and several obligation to return the above facility investment amount of the defendant Eul.

B. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won of the Plaintiff’s investment deposit and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 25, 2014 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, clearly indicated that the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendants, as sought by the Plaintiff.

C. As to this, the Defendants asserted that they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for return of investment amount since the liquidation procedures under the instant trade agreement were not completed. However, the Defendants’ above obligation to return is an obligation recognized under the instant trade agreement regardless of whether the said agreement is liquidated or not, and does not require the completion of liquidation. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.