1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,99,90,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) to the Defendant on October 20, 2014, upon receiving a request from the Nonparty Association from the Defendant for the purchase of the total amount of KRW 320-1,030 square meters for commercial land (8-1), which is KRW 320-1,030,030,000, in lieu of the deposit for the purchase and sale of the said land, and the fact that the Defendant returned the said deposit to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2014 on which the instant lawsuit was pending. The fact that the Plaintiff returned the deposit amount of KRW 1,99,90,900,000 to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2014, in which the instant lawsuit was pending, is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant received the instant deposit from the Plaintiff and agreed to refund the deposit after one month, but agreed to do so. However, the Defendant returned the deposit on March 20, 2015 at the expiration of four months from the agreed date.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 32,875,068 won to the Plaintiff for delay calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum to the instant deposit from November 21, 2014 to March 20, 2015, which is the date of actual return.

B. Preliminary assertion that the right to claim the refund of the instant deposit lies in the non-party partnership.

However, on March 3, 2015, the non-party union transferred the right to claim the return of the deposited money to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant thereof. The Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above damages for delay to the Plaintiff who is the assignee of the deposited money.

3. Determination

A. First of all, as to whether there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to return the deposit of this case after making a monthly deposit from the payment date of the deposit of this case, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was an agreement as alleged above even if considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, etc.