1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on January 23, 2013 by joining the successful bidder as a member and paying the fraternity. The said successful bidder was suspended at 10 times out of 14ths, and the total sum of the deposits paid by the Plaintiff at the time of suspension is KRW 6,816,00.

However, the defendant and the deceased C are co-principals of the instant fraternity, and the defendant stated to the plaintiff that if they had the entire building owned by the defendant's father, they would return the amount paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff in the instant fraternity. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 6,816,00,000 paid by the plaintiff and the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's argument is that the defendant only paid money on behalf of the network C according to the direction of the network C, but is a network for guiding the fraternity of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant is a joint owner of the fraternity of this case is without merit.

In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would return the money paid by the Plaintiff to the instant fraternity, if the full value of the building owned by the Defendant’s husband and wife remains.

2. Determination

A. First, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the Defendant is a joint owner of the instant fraternity, and the fact that the Defendant was in a way to collect the instant fraternity, which is consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument, that the testimony by the witness D of the first instance court, which is consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument, is difficult to believe in light of the following: (a) it is difficult to believe in view of the fact that the Defendant was the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband that the Plaintiff had provided the Defendant with the time limit due to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Defendant with the time limit; and (b) the witness made a statement that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant; and (c) it is difficult to believe in view of the fact of recognition and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that the Defendant was a joint owner of the instant fraternity.

The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would return the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.