1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Recognizing the facts of recognition as Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 22 (including paper numbers), and the following facts if the testimony of the witness D of the first instance trial added the purpose of the whole pleadings:

[1] The Plaintiff operated the Korea Advertising Corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff branch”) in the Korea Shipbuilding, and was in a relationship with D from May 2009.

The defendant is the husband of D.

D was paid monthly wage of KRW 900,000 from January 2010 to July 2013, and was in charge of accounting affairs at the Plaintiff branch.

[2] On December 1, 201, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract stating that “the Plaintiff shall visit the Samsung Membership Exchange located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and sell the instant membership to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On August 24, 2012, the Defendant submitted an application for the termination of the instant membership to the so-called So-called “Korea Development Co., Ltd.” and received the refund of KRW 142,500,000 from the membership fee on March 8, 2013, and issued it to D on March 11, 2013.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the return of the instant membership fee against the Defendant on December 27, 2013, following the aggravation of the relation with D as seen above, demanding D to return the instant membership fee, and filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the said membership fee.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 201, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff intended to dispose of the instant membership because of the lack of the Bill Settlement Fund. The Plaintiff was able to receive refund of KRW 200,000,000 from the Chosun Daily, and settle the bill without disposing of the instant membership.

However, in order for D to dispose of the instant membership later, the Plaintiff trusted the instant membership to the Defendant, who is the husband of D, because it was returned to the effect that the Plaintiff could dispose of the membership in another person’s name.

Nevertheless, the Defendant.