1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion asserts that even though the defendant did not obtain a regular permission on casino stores with the permission of the Cambodian Government around July 2008, the defendant, without knowledge, is liable to pay 80 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, on the following grounds: "A hotel located in the Cambodian Waterworks Co., Ltd., with a regular permission from the Cambodian Government"; he recommended investment in equity to make an international casino store; and he has committed an illegal act by defrauding the plaintiff's total sum of KRW 80 million on two occasions over two occasions at around 2007 and around 2008, which was received from the plaintiff as investment money.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was affiliated with the Plaintiff even though it was not permitted to do so, and that the Plaintiff acquired investment money from the Plaintiff. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the paper number) of this case, the Defendant entered into a contract related to the lease of the area of a casino and the distribution of interior facilities and profits in compliance with the standards of the hotel side on June 30, 2006, the Defendant entered into a casino and entered into a contract related to the distribution of profits, etc. on the part of Dcomer, which is the owner of a new hotel, and the lease of the area of an electronic casino, and the distribution of profits in compliance with the standards of the hotel. Since then on December 2016, the Plaintiff received the permission for the electronic casino business from the Cambodian Government, and installed the electronic slot machine after installing the above hotel, and even if the Defendant’s deception was recognized, the Plaintiff applied for the damages claim against the Plaintiff at the time of suspension of the above electronic casino around January 2009.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.