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

A. The Defendant is a regional housing association established for the purpose of building and selling an apartment in the unit D of Gunsan-si, and the Plaintiff is the representative of the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) who performed the sales business of the above apartment, and the Plaintiff B is the F, the head of the non-party company’s sales team.

B. In order to obtain authorization for the establishment of a partnership, the Defendant recruited members equivalent to at least 50% of the number of households scheduled to be constructed, and as such, Nonparty Company decided to recruit false members.

C. On January 17, 2012, the Gunsan City decided to grant authorization for the establishment of the Defendant, and at the time, the number of the Defendant’s members was 266 persons exceeding 50% of the number of 449 households scheduled to be constructed.

However, among the above 266 persons, the non-party company was recruited by the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. Around August 201, a summary of the claim 1) is insufficient to recognize the existence of a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant as to whether there was a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 201, 201, as to whether the Plaintiff Company A, a member of the Plaintiff Company A, lent KRW 54 million, in the form of direct deposit to H Co., Ltd., a financial management company of the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff’s allegation is insufficient to acknowledge it solely on the basis of the written statement in the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 5, and No. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation is without merit.

B. If a monetary loan contract is not acknowledged between the plaintiff A and the defendant, the defendant acquires the above KRW 54 million without any legal ground, and thus return it to the plaintiff A in unjust enrichment. 2) The summary of the conjunctive claim is determined.