1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion - The Plaintiff operated the so-called “F” award system jointly with E (hereinafter “instant system”).

- Defendant B, a cause of the instant fraternity, did not pay KRW 90,000,000,000 agreed to receive the successful bid on December 27, 2006, as well as KRW 90,000,00,000. The Defendant C and D, a joint and several surety, jointly and severally, are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 90,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The successful bidder does not have the nature of the so-called partnership agreement under the Civil Act, which operates a joint business by making mutual investments as a member of each fraternity, but rather operates a system by its own personal business. In the above-mentioned limits, the calculation relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity exists separately between the fraternity and each fraternity. Thus, the guidance was broken.

There is no room for a problem of dissolution or liquidation, which is based on the premise that the fraternity has the nature of partnership.

Therefore, the successful bidder was dismissed.

Even if the successful bidder is not determined otherwise at the time of the successful bidder organization, it shall not be affected by the duty to pay the agreed deposit amount to the members who already won the successful bidder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Da286 delivered on September 28, 1982, and Supreme Court Decision 93Da5456 delivered on October 11, 1994, etc.). B.

Therefore, in order for the plaintiff to be recognized as the claim of this case, it should be premised on the fact that the plaintiff entered an individual accounting relationship with the defendant B, which is the main agent, with respect to the fraternity and the fraternity. In light of the various circumstances shown in the records of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is the main agent of the fraternity of this case in relation with the defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion of this case is without need to be examined further.