1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant C are between the Plaintiff and Defendant C, who were enrolled in the Hong Institute Industrial Art Graduate School and were influent, and Defendant C is the mother of Defendant C.

B. Around June 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant C engaged in a restaurant business. Since the Plaintiff graduated from the department of Madio and operated stedio, the Plaintiff left the classical language, and the name of the business operator and the name of the lessee are to be registered in the name of the Plaintiff, and the funds were to be jointly invested.

C. On August 15, 2015, in order to operate a restaurant, the Plaintiff and Defendant C leased all part of the first and second floors located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D in the name of the Plaintiff at KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.3 million, and Defendant C operated the Plaintiff’s trade name “E” in the 18th to the 1st to the 1st to the 1st to the 1st to the 1st to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd to the

The Plaintiff built the interior of each of the above restaurants, and Defendant C remitted KRW 121,05,00 to the Plaintiff as the reserve fund for opening the restaurant business.

E. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant C had a dispute over the Plaintiff’s investment amount and its source (whether it is a Plaintiff’s funds or a restaurant sales fee) between the Plaintiff and Defendant C in the process of checking the current status of receipt and disbursement of money at the spring 2016. Around June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff changed the name of the lessee of the said restaurant to G, the South-North-dong of Defendant C, with the lessor’s consent, and around July 6, 2016, the name of the said restaurant business operator was changed to the said G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted with Defendant C and Defendant B operated the above restaurant, and each of the shares was set to 1/3.

For the above restaurant business, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 50 million; (b) KRW 27 million; (c) KRW 3 million; (d) brokerage commission; (c) KRW 37.7 million; and (d) KRW 117,700,00 in total = 50 million.