1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Around October 18, 2013, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for the right to use a set (hereinafter “instant contract”) on condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s request and refund the full amount of deposit after one year, and paid KRW 2 million deposit by card.

On the other hand, as the Plaintiff demanded the return of KRW 2 million to C after one year from the conclusion of the instant contract, C was a corporation D (hereinafter “D”) and was merged with and merged with D, and the Plaintiff demanded the return of deposit to D (hereinafter “D”) but the said company failed to return the deposit, rather, it refused to return the deposit until now.

Accordingly, the plaintiff claims against the defendant the above 2 million won and damages for delay.

2. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 24, the court below held that the right to use the set purchased by the plaintiff is 11,00,000 won in membership fees, 330,000 won in facility management fees, 200,0000 won in membership fees, 10 years in membership fees, and 2,000 won in membership fees, paid by the plaintiff (=10 years x 2,000 won) in the name of facility management fees, and that many consumers, other than the plaintiff, also purchased the right to use the set according to the explanation of the business members of the set companies similar to the defendant that can return deposits, etc., each case was shared with each other's damages and set up a community to receive compensation for damages, and the investigation was conducted by the Seoul Mine Police Station to secure the victims' fraud in relation to the above investigation.