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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2009, the Plaintiff opened a free savings account (i.e., account number D) with Defendant B Livestock Cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant Cooperatives”).

B. 650 million won deposited in the instant account (hereinafter “instant deposit”) was deposited in full on June 30, 2009, and was used in repayment of the Defendant C’s spouse E and the Defendant F’s debt owed to the Defendant Cooperative, the president of the Defendant Cooperative, at the time of the deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 30, 2009, Defendant C, regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, voluntarily withdrawn KRW 650,000,000, which was deposited in the instant account regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, and used it to repay its spouse’s and his/her obligations for loans.

Therefore, the deposit contract of KRW 650 million, which was deposited in the instant account between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union, is still valid, and the Plaintiff terminates the deposit contract with the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint. Therefore, the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages.

In addition, the act of Defendant C voluntarily withdrawn as above constitutes a tort, and pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, Defendant C is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff as damages pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Civil Act and damages for delay.

Furthermore, Defendant C’s voluntary withdrawal from office gains the repayment of the claim against Defendant C’s spouse and his father without any legal cause. As such, Defendant C’s association is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 650 million as unjust enrichment return, and the legal interest and delay damages therefrom.

3. Determination

A. Recognizing the factual basis 1) Defendant C who actually operated G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) (i.e., debt relationship between Defendant C’s family).