A. On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the purchase price of KRW 510,00,000 from the Defendant for each of the instant lands, which is 2,360 square meters and 63 square meters prior to the same Ri (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”), in Jinju-si, and transferred the remainder KRW 410,000,000 to the Defendant on July 30, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “sale contract”).

B. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the competent authority to construct a new house on each of the instant land, but was subject to a disposition on the grounds that the road connected to the instant land was not secured by the Jinju market on the 28th day of the same month.

C. Meanwhile, around May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff had already known that the construction of a building on each of the instant land was impossible in the course of housing design, etc., and began to demand the Defendant to cancel the sales contract and return the down payment already paid. However, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the remainder of KRW 410,000,000 on the ground that the sales contract is valid.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 8-1, Evidence No. 3-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 3-5

2. Determination on the main claim

A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract on the condition that the building permit can be granted. Since a disposition of no construction permit was issued after the conclusion of the sales contract, so the above sales contract becomes null and void due to the non-performance of the condition that the construction permit was canceled, the Defendant shall return the Plaintiff 100,000 won in unjust enrichment. 2) According to the following: (a) the judgment of the Defendant is based on the following: (b) the written confirmation of the preparation of D(Evidence 3) among the sales contract, and E(D’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s agent, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on each of the land of this case