1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2015, the election commission meeting was held to elect the chairperson of the promotion committee for the establishment of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Reconstruction Project Association.

At the above meeting, the election management regulations, the election management plan, etc. were reviewed, and the defendant was elected as administrative assistant of the election commission.

B. At the meeting of the above promotion committee held on November 25, 2015, the resolution was made on December 19, 2015 on the date of the resident general meeting for the election of the chairman of the promotion committee of the association. The expenses incurred at the resident general meeting was borrowed from the Plaintiff who was the candidate for the promotion committee chairman and used the borrowed KRW 15 million, and then the resident general meeting was decided to repay it as soon as possible after the completion of the resident general meeting.

Accordingly, on November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s account where an administrative assistant of the Election Commission was an election commission.

C. After the completion of the above resident general meeting, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the remaining amount of money used as the expenses of the resident general meeting, but the Defendant did not comply therewith, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in embezzlement on October 2016.

On January 10, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on the ground that he embezzled KRW 6,475,245 out of KRW 15 million of the funds of the Victim C apartment reconstruction Promotion Committee in this Court Decision 2017 Go-Ma541, which became final and conclusive.

On February 15, 2017, the Defendant returned the said money to the Plaintiff at KRW 5,963,400,000 that remains after being used as the expenses of the residents’ general meeting.

After that, the Plaintiff received all remaining money from the above partnership (the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of an association was held around September 2017) around June 2018 and July 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's plaintiff made a loan of KRW 15 million at the cost of the residents' general meeting and did not return the remaining money. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining money is not returned. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining money is 9,036.