A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s spouse D were organized together in November 2014 and operated by the successful bidder until June 2017, as a member of the successful bidder’s contract, and paid the entire amount in full during the said period, and was paid KRW 46.5 million by the last sequence on June 15, 2017.

Therefore, the owner of the ship is obliged to pay 46.5 million won to the plaintiff who is the owner of the ship.

B. The defendant is not the owner of a stock.

The defendant's wife D is the subject of guidance, and the defendant only tried D.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the fraternity to the plaintiff.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant organized and operated the successful bid system together with D, and the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a balance, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to whether the defendant is a transferor, or in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers), and Nos. 6 through 12, the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.

The defendant has been receiving the fraternity from the fraternity to the account opened in his own name, and the fraternity has been directly found, and the plaintiff received the fraternity in cash and received the fraternity in writing, and also made a clerical error.

B. The Defendant also announced the date, time, and place of the fraternity meetings held every month to the members of the fraternity, and also prepared a book directly stating the details of the receipt of the fraternity payments from the members of the fraternity.

C. At all times, the Defendant attended with D at the meeting of the fraternity that is held every month to determine the guidance personnel to receive the guidance and to pay the guidance personnel.

The property of both the defendant and the D couple, which is worth guaranteeing the obligation of guidance to the fraternity members, is all in the name of the defendant, and the defendant couple does not seem to have engaged in economic activities by strictly separating their own property.

E. The plaintiff is the defendant.