A. A. Around January 201, the Defendant organized a fraternity (hereinafter referred to as “instant fraternity”) to pay KRW 300,000 per unit from the following month after the receipt of the fraternity (hereinafter referred to as “instant fraternity”), and the Plaintiff subscribed as a fraternity of three old units (20,21,22) among them.

B. The instant fraternity dealt with all business affairs, such as the deposit of accounts and the payment of fraternity deposits by the Defendant, the owner of the instant fraternity.

C. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 56 million with three previous accounts, and received KRW 12 million out of the old accounts No. 20. D.

Since then, the guidance of this case was not paid by the members of the fraternity, and the guidance of this case was dispatched.

[Ground of Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, witness C and D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 91.2 million with the instant fraternity, the Defendant paid only KRW 12 million among them. The Plaintiff’s payment of the fraternity unpaid to the Plaintiff is KRW 23.6 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 55 million ( KRW 91.2 million - KRW 23.5 million - KRW 12 million) that is unpaid to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant, who decided that the plaintiff would collect directly from the members of the fraternity, made and ordered the power of attorney directly, and thereby, the settlement procedure has been completed in relation to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The legal nature of the instant fraternity differs according to any mode of view as to the purpose and method of organizing it, the method of paying the benefits, the method of paying the benefits before and after the payment, the method of paying the benefits, the existence of the guidance, the relationship between the guidance and the guidance, or the relationship between the guidance and the guidance, regardless of whether it is a different legal nature.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1686, Mar. 22, 1983). With respect to the instant case, there is no evidence to deem that the instant community members run a joint business.