1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff was the general secretary of the DJ, that E was the chairperson of the above clan, that Defendant B was the children of Defendant E, and that Defendant C was the wife of Defendant C.

After purchasing and developing the F land of the Dongsan-gu, the above clans Association has been invested in the members of the above clans with the profits of resale as well as the profits of resale.

Defendant B invested each of the KRW 50,000,000 on November 11, 2009 and KRW 50,000,000 on June 16, 200, and Defendant C did not have made any investment.

After that, in order to develop the above land, the above clans association decided to independently develop the above land and resell it, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the investment principal and consolation money to the investors.

However, on December 16, 2009, when the Plaintiff’s accounting staff G transferred KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant C, not investors, in the process of paying the said investment principal and consolation money, and Defendant B transferred KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B even though it should transfer KRW 60,000.

Therefore, the Defendants should return each claim amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5-2, it is recognized that on December 16, 2009, the amount of KRW 120,000,000 from the account in the name of the plaintiff to the account in the name of the defendant Eul, and KRW 50,000,000 from the account in the name of the defendant C was remitted.

However, as to whether the Defendants acquired unjust enrichment by acquiring the aforementioned remitted money, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3, the Plaintiff and E conspired with the Plaintiff and were punished for the money of the Category D. However, it can be acknowledged that the money transferred to the Defendants’ account was remitted to E in relation to the crime of embezzlement

Thus, the Plaintiff’s remittance amount merely because the Defendants, other than E, were the account holder in which each of the above money was remitted.