1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the photographingr, and the Defendant is the person who was working for the Secretariat in the “C Civil Union” (hereinafter “instant organization”).

B. On January 31, 2002, the Plaintiff drafted a sponsoring agreement under the name of the Defendant and the instant organization (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff. The written contract bears the Defendant’s seal affixed on the side stated “Defendant of the Secretariat of the instant organization”.

C. The Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 20 million between January 24, 2002 and February 18, 2002, and KRW 25 million on September 7, 2002 to the account under the name of the instant organization.

Meanwhile, the instant organization closed its business around March 3, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul's 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is, in fact, an organization that is operated by the Defendant individually by the Defendant, whose executive officers and employees are the Defendant’s family members and substantial operation and fund management. The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, not the instant organization, and the instant contract was terminated, and the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 2.5 million as a deposit for taking photographs of the Cancerdong after the conclusion of the instant contract.

In addition, the Plaintiff repaid 10 million won each of the deposits that the Defendant must return to D and E on behalf of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit of KRW 12,50,000 and the deposit of KRW 20,000,000 paid by the plaintiff, total of KRW 32,50,000,000, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is not the organization of this case, but the contract of this case was terminated on January 30, 2004, even if the Defendant had to return the deposit.