The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal that the instant fraternity constitutes a partnership, even if the said money is provided as a benefit, the purpose and method of organizing it, the method of providing the benefit, and the method of paying the benefit before or after the payment, the relationship between the guidance and the guidance or the guidance, and the relationship between the guidance and the guidance or the guidance, or between the guidance and the guidance, and other issues, depending on its legal nature, the instant fraternity has the nature of the partnership agreement, a loan for consumption, or a loan for non-titled contract, and thus, its nature differs from its liabilities.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da57191 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). In light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the legal nature of the instant fraternity is a kind of loan for consumption, rather than a partnership under the Civil Act, or that it is reasonable to view it as a type of private business or a non-commercial contract of C, the main owner of which is a loan for consumption.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of the instant fraternity.

2. As to the grounds of appeal as to the validity of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and, at the same time and at a place different from that of the fraternity group scheduled to exclude the Plaintiff, who was the sequence of receipt of the fraternity money, received the fraternity payment received from the members present at the meeting, instead of the Plaintiff, and did not pay the fraternity payment for that month, without any legal grounds, which was received by the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s property, and the Defendant did not pay the fraternity payment for that month.