[1] The settlement relationship in the case of a strike

[2] The case holding that since the legal nature of the transferred fraternity is a kind of loan for consumption between the fraternity and the fraternity, a member who was unable to receive the fraternity due to the strike cannot claim a return of unjust enrichment against the fraternity member who received the fraternity

[1] Since the legal relations between the fraternity and the fraternity arise after the strike are different depending on the nature of the fraternity, the settlement relationship should be determined by taking into account the contents of the agreement between the fraternity and the fraternity, the forms of operation of the fraternity, and the relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity. If the fraternity members join the fraternity only with the agreement with the fraternity regardless of other fraternity members, regardless of whether the fraternity members are different, and the fraternity members are fully responsible for the operation of the fraternity, and if there is no other contractual relationship between the fraternity members, it shall be deemed that one contract between the fraternity and the week is integrated. For any reason, when the fraternity becomes unable to operate the fraternity, the settlement between the fraternity and the week shall be made in accordance with the agreement between each fraternity and the week.

[2] The case holding that since the legal nature of the fraternity is operated as an individual business, and it is a kind of loan contract between the fraternity and the fraternity, a member who did not receive the fraternity due to the strike cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment against the fraternity member who received the fraternity, in light of all circumstances, such as the fact that the fraternity member joined the fraternity based on the personal-friendly relationship with the fraternity, that it is not the joint operation of the fraternity itself, and that the fraternity member does not deal with all business affairs, such as the payment of the fraternity and the payment of the fraternity, etc., the plaintiff cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment against the fraternity member who received the fraternity

[1] Articles 598 and 703 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 598 and 741 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1426 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 874)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

October 20, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,79,710 won with 20% interest per annum from December 11, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty 1 recruited 13 fraternitys around August 26, 2006, and organized and operated 17 old units, 1925,00 won per old unit, 30 million won per old unit (However, the first payment shall be 3 million won per month from February 26, 2007 to May 26, 2007, and 26 days from June 26, 2007 (hereinafter “instant accounts”). Nonparty 2 joined 3 old units, 1, and 3 old units, 2 old units, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 101 shares, respectively.

B. The members entered the instant fraternity based on the personal-friendly relationship with the non-party 1, who is the fraternity, and the non-party 1 received the fraternity payment from the fraternity members and paid the fraternity payment to the fraternity members who will receive it.

C. Nonparty 2 and 5 did not pay the accounts from March 2007, and the remainder of the accounts did not pay the accounts from May 2007, and the accounts of this case were dissolved due to the failure to pay the accounts (However, some of the members including the Defendant paid the accounts to Nonparty 8 for May and June 2007).

D. The plaintiff and the non-party 6, 7, 8, and 9 paid the fraternity amounting to KRW 18.4 million to the non-party 1, each of whom was the guidance nine times from August 26, 2006 to April 26, 2007, but did not receive the fraternity due to the instant fraternity.

E. Accordingly, Nonparty 6, 7, 8, and 9 alleged that the Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 13,525,00 ( KRW 30 million - KRW 16,475,000) due to the strike of the instant fraternity, and on November 23, 2007, transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 8,656,00 equivalent to the sum of their equity interests in KRW 13,525,00, which is the sum of KRW 13,525,00, and notified the Defendant on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is a kind of association agreement the purpose of which is the mutual savings between the members of the fraternity is to liquidate the mutual savings relationship, and that the amount paid and the amount received by each member of the fraternity should be offset on an equal amount, and the remaining amount should be liquidated by exchanging the members of the fraternity. The defendant who received the mutual savings has the obligation to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff who did not receive the mutual savings.

(b) Markets:

In light of the nature of the guidance, the settlement relationship between the guidance and the guidance shall be determined by taking into consideration the contents of the agreement between the guidance and the guidance, the form of operation, and the relationship between the guidance and the guidance. If the guidance personnel, regardless of other guidance members, regardless of the other guidance members, is fully responsible for the guidance's operation, and there is no contractual relationship between the guidance members, it shall be deemed that one contract between the guidance and the respective guidance are integrated for several reasons, so the settlement between the guidance personnel and the guidance personnel when the guidance personnel becomes unable to operate more and more for any reason shall be made in accordance with the agreement between each guidance and the guidance. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts are that the plaintiff's personal-friendly relationship between the guidance personnel and the guidance personnel, and that the plaintiff's personal-friendly relationship between the guidance personnel and the guidance personnel was not received, and that the plaintiff's personal-friendly relationship was not received, and that the plaintiff's personal-friendly relationship was not received.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-won