2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the owner of the sequence operated from August 13, 201 to February 13, 2014, and paid the Defendant, who is the cause of the succession, the amount of money of two old units (10 and No. 11) to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s payment of old accounts in 11 was paid by C. However, from June 13, 2013 to February 13, 2014, the sum of KRW 11,700,000 was not paid every nine times.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 11,700,000 won of the deposit amount of the old account, which is not paid to the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion is merely the fact that the defendant joined the above 10 unit of order, and there is no fact that the defendant joined the 11 unit of order.

It is C to join the 11th unit of the above-mentioned system.

2. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading by Gap evidence No. 6, it is recognized that C remitted the Plaintiff KRW 15,200,000 in total to the deposit amount of the old No. 11 from August 20, 2011 to July 20, 2012.

However, the above facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a party to the 11th unit of the above-mentioned order, and that C paid a part of the old unit of accounts on the 11th unit of the above-mentioned order, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In such determination, the plaintiff's assertion has been continuously changed from the first instance to the trial court, and it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's assertion is reliable.

In other words, at the time of filing an application for payment order, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,600,000 to the Defendant, which is the owner of the rupture operated from October 201 to April 2013, 201, as the deposit amount of “14 old accounts” on January 20, 2011, and the Defendant thereafter failed to pay KRW 11,700,000 to the Defendant.” In the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff was operating the rupture operated from August 13, 2011 to February 13, 2014,” and that “the Plaintiff was the owner of the rupture operated from August 13, 2011 to February 13, 2014.”