1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 56,580,00 and the period from May 1, 2015 to April 11, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant B and his husband, the husband of the Plaintiff, who operated the Hanta Private Institute under the trade name “E” in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu. Around early 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to operate a private teaching institute and coffee shop at the same place (hereinafter “instant trade agreement”). In addition, the Defendants leased the two-story F of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul, with the Defendants on a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and agreed to operate the same (hereinafter “instant trade agreement”).

(2) In the instant trade agreement, the Plaintiff is fully responsible for the deposit of KRW 30 million, and the Defendants were to operate a private teaching institute using their know-how, as well as to bring about materials, such as coffees, which were used by the said institute.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed that the Plaintiff will preferentially pay for the Plaintiff’s investment when profits accrue from the operation of a private teaching institute.

(3) 또한 원고와 피고들은 위 학원 내부 한 켠에 커피전문점을 만들어 운영하고, 커피전문점 수익으로 월세를 충당하기로 하였고, 원고가 위 커피전문점을 운영하기로 하였다.

(4) In accordance with the instant trade agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) March 26, 2015; and (b)

4. 9. A total of KRW 30 million was paid as a deposit for lease.

(5) However, upon receiving a request from the Defendants to make an additional investment in money, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,380,000 to the Defendants each for the purchase cost of Rotterdam, etc. on April 23, 2015, and KRW 10,200,000 for the purchase cost of Rotterdam machinery, etc. on April 29, 2015.

(1) The conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (1) established a legal entity in relation to the registration of a private teaching institute and registered its business in the name of the legal entity, and the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s female G was registered as an executive.

However, when the defendants establish a corporation, the initial expenses are increased and administrative procedures are complicated, so the business registration is defective in the name of the defendant B individual.