1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff concerning the conjunctive claim that orders payment below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on July 8, 2009, and the CDA entered into a membership agreement with G golf members (hereinafter “instant membership agreement”). The membership agreement per account per the aforesaid membership agreement is KRW 8,500,000.

B. At the time of the instant membership agreement, the duration shall be three years from the date of full payment of the subscription fee, and upon the expiration of the said duration, the subscriber agreed to return the subscription fee.

C. The Plaintiff settled KRW 34,00,000 on his national card, which is his own credit card, for the payment of deposit under the instant membership agreement, in total of KRW 34,00,000,000 on June 30, 2009, KRW 25,50,000 on July 8, 2009, and KRW 34,00,000 on July 9, 2009. The said settlement amount was all deposited into the Defendant’s account.

around 2012, the Plaintiff and E sought a return of subscription money under the instant membership agreement against F (the Plaintiff asserted that the membership agreement entered into in the name C and D was actually concluded by the Plaintiff) and applied for a payment order as Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea71827, and the said court issued a payment order on October 25, 2012 that “F shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,500,000, KRW 8,500,000, and each of the above amounts calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 3, 2012 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on November 17, 2012.

E. Meanwhile, C and D transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the refund of subscription money under each of the instant membership agreements on September 4, 2012, and E, August 27, 2013, and notified F of the transfer of credit on August 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety is F, not the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks the return of the subscription fee pursuant to the above membership agreement against the Defendant.