[2] The case holding that the responsibility of care for the members of the community is separately recognized in the Saemaeul community in which two members of the community are located

[2] The case holding that, among the guidances created by Gap and Eul as joint guidances, those guidances recruited by Gap directly, paid guidances to Gap, transferred guidances to Gap's deposit accounts, and received guidances from Eul, and those guidances joined Eul upon Eul's invitation received guidances from Eul, and those guidances collected from Eul for the purpose of paying guidances or receiving guidances, there was no genetic relation, such as the guidances recruited by Eul and the guidances collected by Eul were left from different forms of deposits, and except for the case of individual guidances, if Gap and Eul were to have enjoyed profits from paying guidances, it is difficult to conclude that Gap and Eul have a duty to pay guidances to those guidances not to do so as joint guidances.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below recognized that the co-defendant 2 was liable to pay the above 00 won to the defendant 1 and 00 won each month for the above 10th of 00 won and then received the above 10th of 00 won each month for the co-defendant 200 won and then received the above 0th of 00 won each time for the above 0th of 0th of 0 won. The co-defendant 20th of 00 won each time for the above 0th of 0th of 0 won and the co-defendant 2nd of 0th of 0. The co-defendant 2nd of 0th of 0,000 won each time for the above 0th of 0th of 0 won and the co-defendant 2nd of 0th of 0,000 won each time for the above 0th of 0th of 0 won and the co-defendant 3th of 0th of 1.

However, according to the purpose and method of making up the same money as a payment, the method of paying the benefit, or the method of paying the benefit thereafter, the relationship between the fraternity, the head of the household, and the fraternity or the members, or the relationship between them, and other issues, the legal nature of which differs from that of the partnership agreement or the loan for consumption or the borrowed name contract, and thus, the liability for the fraternity or the owner is different according to its nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1257, Jun. 22, 1982). According to the statement of No. 2 of this case and the witness Kim-hee's testimony of the court below, it is difficult for the co-defendant 2 of this case to pay the money directly to the defendant, except for the case where the co-defendant 2 of this case did not know that he had the obligation to pay the money to the defendant, and it is difficult for the defendant to receive the money from the other co-defendant 1 of this case to receive the money from the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below did not properly examine the relationship between the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance, the relationship between the fraternity and the co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance, and the relationship between the fraternity and each of them, etc., and held that the defendant is liable to pay the fraternity in relation to the plaintiff, which is the cause of the fraternity that he did not recruit, merely because it is stated in its reasoning, is not erroneous in the rules of evidence, or erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the liability of the fraternity in relation to the fraternity in the fraternity where two or more directors are located, nor is it clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the responsibility of the fraternity in relation

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)