1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the grounds of the primary claim by the plaintiffs

A. The plaintiffs asserted on January 5, 2009 entered into a contract with the effect that they invest the business funds and receive the distribution of business profits (hereinafter "investment contract of January 5, 2009"), which is promoted by the defendant for the defendant's business capital ("the plaintiff A") to the defendant ("the plaintiff") ("the plaintiff") to pay 2.2 billion won (=the service cost of 2.0 billion won design authorization for the business capital), the plaintiff Eul Co., Ltd ("the plaintiff B") to 275 billion won (the service cost of 250 million won design for the business capital) (the service cost of 250 million won design for the business capital), and the plaintiff C paid KRW 825 million (the service cost of 750 million design for the business capital amount of KRW 750 million) to the defendant (the service cost of 750 million design of KRW 750 million).

According to the investment contract dated January 5, 2009, the defendant shall acquire the authorization and permission by October 2010, and if the defendant fails to perform the above obligation, the plaintiffs cancel the contract and the defendant is obligated to return the investment amount. As the defendant failed to perform the above obligation, the plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel the contract to the defendant on May 12, 201, and filed a claim for the return of the investment amount, the defendant shall pay the above amount of money and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the statement and argument in Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant representative director, who was F, was appointed as joint representative director on November 10, 2008 by G and G, and was a joint representative director on March 20, 2009. Thus, Gap evidence No. 1, which the plaintiffs asserted as the investment contract of January 5, 2009, concluded with the defendant, as the date of preparation, was only one joint representative director on January 5, 2009, and thus, it cannot be deemed valid (the plaintiff asserted that the other joint representative director was individually delegated the power of representation to G, but only the statement in evidence No. 1, 3-1, 4-1, and 4-1 of evidence No. 2, which is insufficient to acknowledge it otherwise.

....