beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received an amount of KRW 5,00,000 by the sequences, but, prior to receiving an amount of fraternity, the Plaintiff organized the said amount of KRW 500,000 per month in the former unit and KRW 600,000 per month in the former unit (hereinafter “instant sequences”).
B. The Defendant joined the 3 unit of the instant order system.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The instant lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking the payment of unpaid fraternitys against the Defendant, which is the owner of a fraternity. Since the instant system operated by the Plaintiff constitutes a partnership, the property belonging to the fraternity, including claims and obligations related to the fraternity, belongs to all the members of the fraternity, and it is unlawful to file a lawsuit claiming the payment of fraternitys to the Defendant solely without going through liquidation procedures.
B. The legal nature differs depending on the purpose and method of organization, the method of paying the goods to be paid, the method of payment before or after payment, the method of payment, the existence of guidance and the relationship between the guidance and the guidance or guidance, the mutual relationship between the guidance and the guidance and the guidance and the guidance, even though the subject matter of payment of the same money is the subject matter of payment.
Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively consider and determine what limits have partnership character, whether or not it has the nature of loan for consumption, or whether or not it has the nature of non-contractual nature.
(2) The Plaintiff’s establishment of a joint business by mutual investment among the members of the instant mutual investment association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Da286, Sept. 28, 1982). However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant mutual investment association constitutes a joint business.
In addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap's 2 and 3 as a whole, are ① the plaintiff.