206 Gaz. 13437 Gaz.

1. Quantities;

Suwon-dongo0, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Western-gu

2. Quantities00

Suwon-si Doo00

[Defendant-Appellant]

1. o0

2. Goo;

Defendants’ Address Mo-dong-dong o

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others

[Defendant-Appellant]

February 13, 2008

February 27, 2008

1. Defendant 00 shall pay 14,00,000 won to both Plaintiff 00, 7,400,000 won to Plaintiff 0, and 5% per annum from September 29, 2006 to February 27, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining claims against the Defendant 00 by both Plaintiffs 0 and the administrative office against Defendant 00 by the Plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 00 and the defendant 00 is assessed against the plaintiff 0 and the defendant 00, and the part arising between the plaintiff 0 and the defendant 00 is assessed against the plaintiff 0 and the defendant 00, respectively. The part arising between the plaintiffs 0 and the defendant 00 is assessed against the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 00 14,00,000 won, 19,000,000 won to the Plaintiff o, and 5% per annum from the day following the day of final delivery of the complaint to the day of final payment, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Lee 00

(a) Basic facts;

(1) Defendant 0: (a) around January 30, 204, Defendant 00 received KRW 500,000,000, monthly interest of KRW 100,000 for each month from the members of the fraternity to the time of receipt of the fraternity as the payment per unit; and (b) paid to the members of the fraternity 14,00,000, monthly interest of KRW 100,000 for each unit after the receipt of the fraternity; and (c) when paying to the members of the fraternity the amount of interest of KRW 14,00,00 for each unit, the person who received the fraternity 10,000,000 for each unit, was determined as the 30th day of each month for each unit; and (d) the operation period from January 30, 2004 to November 206, Plaintiff 00 for each unit of account and Plaintiff 40,000 for each unit of account.

(2) Around January 16, 2006, Defendant 0 organized a successful bid for the same contents as the 30-day system (hereinafter “16-day system”) with the exception that the operation period again becomes 28 months, and the Plaintiff 0 and the Plaintiff 0 respectively subscribed to the 1st unit and the 2nd unit.

(3) However, the defendant 00 later failed to pay the amount agreed upon to the members of the fraternity properly, and eventually, the 30th and 16th and the 16th have de facto broken around June 2006.

(4) Meanwhile, Plaintiff 0 paid 1,600,000 won for 30 days of payment (i.e., 400,000 won per month payment period x 29,000 won for 16 days of payment period) and 2,400,000 won for 16 days of payment (i.e., 400,000 won per month payment period x 6 months of payment period x 6 months of payment period) to Defendant 0, but not awarded 15,00,000 won for 30 days of payment, 000 won for 0 days of payment period x 40,000 won for 30 days of payment period x 10,000 won for 0 days of payment period, 00,000 won for 0-day payment period for x 40,000 won for x 10,400,000 won for x 40,000 account payment period for x 10.

(5) In addition, after the dissolution of the defendant 0, the defendant 00 deposited 30,000,000 won as the deposit amount by taking the plaintiff 0 as the deposit amount, and the plaintiff 0 received it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A2 to 5, evidence B to 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Markets:

The successful bidder is not the nature of partnership contracts under the Civil Act, which operates a joint business with the mutual contribution as a member of the fraternity, but rather the owner of the fraternity organized and operates the funds as a member of his own personal business. Therefore, the calculation relationship between the fraternity and each fraternity exists individually between the fraternity and the fraternity, and the method of settlement of the fraternity shall be determined by the agreement between the fraternity and the fraternity, and in the absence of any separate custom on such agreement or settlement, the relationship of rights should be repeated in a reasonable direction consistent with the party's will, in consideration of the form of operation of the fraternity or the fairness between the fraternity and the fraternity.

However, there is no evidence that there was a separate agreement on the method of settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant 00 on the method of settlement of each fraternity or there is custom on this method. In the end, in the case of this case, it is right to settle the mutual legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant 0 by way of returning the balance of public restriction to the plaintiffs (no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant 0).

Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, defendant Lee o is liable to pay 14,00,000 won for each of the above amounts to 00 won for 30 days' 11,60,000 won + 16 days' 2,400,000 won for each of the above amounts, and 7,400,000 won for the plaintiff Yang 0 (=total of 30 days' 47,600,000 + 16 days' 4,800,000 won + 15,000,000 - annual damages for delay received 30,000,000 won for each of the above amounts, and to pay 20,000,0000 won for each of the above amounts to 20,000,0000 won for each of the following day's 20,200,0000 won for each of the above amounts under the Civil Act, as the plaintiffs seek after the date.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant New 00

(a) Grounds for claims;

Since Defendant 00, a husband of Defendant 00, was involved in the receipt of the fraternity deposit and the preparation of related documents and books as co-principal, Defendant 00, who is the husband of Defendant 00, is obligated to pay the above settlement amount to the Plaintiffs jointly and severally with Defendant 0O. Even if Defendant 00 is not a co-principal, the above Defendant actively participated in the act of breach of trust, such as concealment of the fraternity deposit or consumption, etc., and thus, Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs of the horse.

(b) the board;

In light of the above facts, the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (the evidence No. 5 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the truth of its establishment in relation to Defendant Shin o), 6-1, 2, and 1 of evidence Nos. 6-1, and 1, Defendant 0 was in a position of guidance to operate each community jointly with Defendant No. 00 (the added evidence No. 00 expressed that Defendant No. 00 would pay the accounts or settlement money jointly with Defendant No. 00) or jointly with Defendant No. 10. 60, it is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant No. 2 was actively involved in the act of breach of trust, such as concealing the payment of deposits by Defendant No. 00, and that Defendant Nos. 60 and No. 2, and No. 5 were finally dismissed as well as Defendant No. 1’s new evidence No. 7, on the ground that Defendant No. 9 and No. 5 were found to have been found to have been found to have not been established.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against 00 against 00, the plaintiff's claims against 00 are accepted only within the scope of the above 1st person's claims, and the plaintiffs' claims against 00 against 00 are dismissed on the grounds that there are no reasonable grounds.

Kim Jong-il