1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On March 25, 2014, the Defendant and EFC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EFC”) entered into a joint agreement on March 25, 2014 with respect to the business of on-site stores and urban-type residential housing outside Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, and two parcels of land.

The defendant and EckNC agreed to promote the business by acquiring business rights from the business development corporation, the business rights from the business management corporation, the business management corporation, and the UN Entertainment.

However, as the transfer of business rights from the Cheongyang Industrial Development Co., Ltd., the first executor company, has become unable to carry out a joint project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2,3,10,13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 24, 2014, the gist of the Plaintiffs’ claims entered into a supply agreement with the Defendant and EFFC to be supplied with five officetels related to its joint business (hereinafter “instant supply agreement”). On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs wired the supply price to the account designated by the Defendant, which is the account designated by the Defendant (affiliated companies of EFC).

Since the business has no fault attributable to the defendant, the plaintiffs cancel the supply contract and request the defendant to return the supply price.

Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant supply contract, the Defendant’s and Edd CoC constitute a partnership as a joint executor, and the conclusion of the instant supply contract constitutes the execution of the partnership’s business.

Therefore, since the obligation to return the supply price and the obligation to compensate for damages under the supply contract of this case are the obligation to be borne by all members through commercial activities, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with Makdidi.

3. Determination

A. The supply contract as to whether the Defendant is a party to the instant supply contract and its special terms and conditions were written only in the names of the Plaintiffs and EFC.

The plaintiffs were issued a joint agreement (A 3) and a certificate of borrowing (A 9) instead of preparing a contract only in the name of Escendi, because the defendant was in a legal dispute.