2. The plaintiff B, C, and D's claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff A’s assertion concluded a membership agreement (hereinafter “instant membership agreement”) with Plaintiff E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to join the F golf club (hereinafter “instant golf club”) to be constructed in Chuncheon and Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-gun (hereinafter “instant golf club”), and paid KRW 30,00,000 as the down payment per contract date. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff A filed an application for withdrawal.

On the other hand, on June 5, 2013, the non-party company transferred to the defendant all the movable property necessary for the operation of the instant golf course and golf course, and succeeded to the obligation to return the down payment to the plaintiff of the non-party company with the approval of business change from Gangwon-do around August 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A 30,000,000 won with 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 2, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 2, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. The judgment ex officio as to Plaintiff A’s claim in the instant lawsuit does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of the prior suit that has res judicata effect. At the same time, even if the subject matter of the prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of the prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of the prior suit in the subsequent suit does not allow a subsequent suit to be asserted differently from the judgment on the prior suit in the subsequent suit (Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002; 2013Da19083, Nov. 28, 2013; 2013Da19083, Nov. 28, 2013). In full view of each of the statements in evidence No. 12-3, No. 2, and No. 2, No. 12077, Nov. 8, 2012; 1.050, Nov. 30, 2015>