1. All of the appeals filed by the defendant are dismissed;

2. The costs of the review are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. The Plaintiffs, as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2009Gahap7296, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Partnership concluded a sales contract from July 9, 2007 to August 10, 2007, and agreed to pay the additional charges to the Plaintiffs, and thus, agreed to receive the additional charges if the judiciary judges that the Plaintiffs are not legally responsible for the late payment charges. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment on the grounds that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiffs to bear the overdue charges.

B. The defendant union did not submit a written answer within 30 days after being served with a copy of the complaint of the above case.

Accordingly, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of all plaintiffs on July 24, 2009 without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(hereinafter referred to as "the subject decision for review"). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 7, the facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. 1) Nonparty L filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the overdue charge already paid against the Defendant Union (Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Kadan5357) on the ground that he/she is not obligated to pay the overdue charge on his/her own. The above court determined that the Defendant Union is obligated to refund the overdue charge to L, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around August 2008 (hereinafter “prior judgment”).

2) Upon the conclusion of the preceding judgment, some of the other partners filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Union seeking the return of the late payment charge (Seoul Eastern District Court 2008Gahap12680). The above court decided to the effect that the Defendant Union would refund the late payment charge to the above members, and the above decision is made.