A. As the Plaintiff’s leading shareholder, the Plaintiff subscribed to the bid bid system with the maturity of KRW 30 million, each of which consists of 12 months, respectively, on September 7, 2012, September 10, 2012, September 21, 2012, and February 24, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as "one system" and "two to four systems" in the order of the remaining successful bidding date, and each of the above systems is referred collectively to as "each of the above systems". (b)

The Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant the sum of KRW 1,651,00,000 in total from September 2, 2012 to May 2013, 2013, the sum of KRW 1,599,000 in total during the same period as the deposit amount of two times, the sum of KRW 1,5410,000 in total during the same period as the deposit amount of three times, and the sum of KRW 7,520,00 in four times from February 2, 2013 to May 2 of the same year.

C. The Defendant was convicted of fraud in relation to the operation of the system and was serving in prison at the present time. Each of the instant systems was transferred around May 2013.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The successful bidder is not having the nature of the so-called partnership agreement under the Civil Act, which operates a joint business by mutual investment as a member of the entire members, but rather having the entire members organized a system as a personal business. In the above-mentioned contexts, the calculation relationship between the fraternity and the respective fraternity exists on an individual basis.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456 delivered on October 11, 1994), however, there is no evidence to deem that there was an express agreement between the original and the Defendant regarding the method of settlement in the case where each of the instant maps was dispatched.

As above, it is reasonable to settle the accounts of the successful bidder who has already received the fraternitys in the way that the fraternitys who have already received the fraternitys are performing the agreed obligation to the fraternitys as they are, and any fraternitys who have not yet received the fraternitys shall settle the accounts by the way that the principal of the fraternitys already paid is returned from the fraternitys.

Supreme Court Decision 62Da240 Delivered on November 15, 1962