1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) deceptions the Plaintiff into a fraternity organized by C in the name of the Plaintiff; and (b) receives KRW 21,902,00 from the Plaintiff as the deposit amount of the fraternity made by July 25, 2014; (c) KRW 20,51,058 as the deposit amount of the fraternity made by August 30, 2014; and (d) KRW 18,320,51 as the deposit amount of the fraternity made by October 10, 2014; (c) however, the Defendant did not actually join the said fraternity in the name of the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant did not deliver the said deposit amount to C at his own discretion, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said deposit amount to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff alleged in the original complaint that the Defendant acquired the payment of the deposit money, but the Defendant asserted that the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the payment without delivering it to the fraternity owner on October 24, 2016 in the application form for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim. However, in the preparatory document dated April 20, 2017, which was recently submitted, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant acquired the payment of the deposit money by deceiving the Plaintiff again, and that the Plaintiff made a claim for damages or a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the grounds of deception, embezzlement, etc., as to the payment of the deposit money.

1) First, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant joined the fraternity in the name of the Plaintiff, deceiving the Plaintiff, and acquired the fraternity money from the Plaintiff, only the statement of No. 3, and the testimony of the witness C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, in light of the statement of No. 3, the Plaintiff appears to have known that the Plaintiff paid the fraternity money to the fraternity organized by C in the name of the Defendant. Thus, the claim based on the premise that the Defendant acquired the fraternity money from the Plaintiff is without merit (In addition, even though the Defendant knew that the fraternity money was not properly paid due to the shortage of accounting, the Defendant received the fraternity money from the Plaintiff merely because he knew that the fraternity money was not paid.