1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000, and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 25, 2013 to February 25, 2014, Defendant B operated a successful bid amount consisting of 10,000,00 per month of the deposit amount. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D are the winners of the said successful bid, and the members of the instant fraternity are 11, excluding Defendant B, the main actors.

B. While the Plaintiff continued to pay the fraternity to Defendant B, the instant fraternity was sold in the state that the Plaintiff did not receive the fraternity.

C. The Plaintiff’s deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, which had not been returned until now, due to the payment by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants did not pay the entire amount of KRW 20,000,000 each, and the instant fraternity is a partnership under the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendants’ claim for the payment of the entire amount is a partnership’s partnership’s property.

Although all partners exercise their rights with respect to the property of an association, only one member is different from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff does not independently exercise the said property and do not cause damage to other members. Thus, the Plaintiff claims 1/2 out of the above claim against the Defendants of the association.

B. The judgment system differs in its legal nature according to the purpose and method of organization, the method of paying the benefits, the method of paying the benefits, the method of paying the benefits before and after the benefits, the existence of the guidance and the relationship between the guidance and the guidance or the guidance, and any other issues, even though the payment is made in full.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1686 delivered on March 22, 1983). In light of the fact of recognition and the fact that the existence of a contractual relationship or a business jointly promoted between the fraternity members of the instant case does not appear to have existed, and that the Plaintiff was deeply aware of all the fraternity members, but most of the Plaintiff did not know it, and that some of the fraternity members was a company to the extent that they were aware.