The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2018, the Defendant, as the representative of promoters, held an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a cooperative for the management of arts and the realization of culture and arts. On September 27, 2018, the Defendant was required to report the establishment of the corporation under the name of “C Union” and was appointed as the president of the C Union on November 1, 2018.

From November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff is a person who has served as the secretary general of C Union.

B. On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 42 million to C Union accounts, including KRW 7 million and KRW 35 million on May 20, 2019.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff invested KRW 42 million in the Defendant and remitted the said money to the account of the CU to the Defendant for convenience, and that it did so only for convenience, and even if not, the Defendant is the actual owner of the interest of the president of the CU, and thus, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to return the investment amount to the investors of the CU.C.., so the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 42 million

The argument is asserted.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred 42 million won to the account of the C Union to the Defendant solely on the basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 29 of the C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence No. 15, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff requested the return of the investment amount, the Plaintiff agreed to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff at any time, or the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to return the investment amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit with respect to the amount of investment to be returned.

3. Conclusion.