1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, C, and D 3 drafted the articles of incorporation (Evidence B) that, around February 2013, E and D 75 million won, respectively, and the Defendant invested cash and goods equivalent to KRW 150 million in cash and goods in the amount of KRW 150 million, thereby establishing a “F” corporation in China.

B. Thereafter, G participated as an additional investor, and the said four persons, respectively, drafted again the articles of incorporation (Evidence A 4) that incorporated the said legal entity by investing the said legal entity in kind and cash in the amount of KRW 75 million on February 7, 2014.

C. On August 12, 2014, the Defendant drafted and issued to D a letter of undertaking that “I will cope with KRW 10 million with H (Intermediate omission) and the period will be adjusted by December 2, 2015, and I will cancel A’s equity interest in the Chinese business part (A’s certificate No. 2; hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff, around February 7, 2014, agreed to withdraw from the partnership with the Defendant, C, and G, and the Defendant prepared and provided the instant undertaking to settle the dispute. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant undertaking.”

The defendant asserts that "the defendant et al. and the person operating a partnership with the defendant et al. are not the plaintiff company but the representative director D of the plaintiff. The title "A" of the letter of undertaking of this case refers to D individual."

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, C, and G partners are not the Plaintiff Company, but D individuals, and that the Plaintiff Company did not hold shares in the said partnership relationship, it is reasonable to view that the title “A” of the instant undertaking refers to the Plaintiff Company, not the Plaintiff Company, but the Plaintiff Company, as the representative of D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.