매매대금반환
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the remaining reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are dismissed or added as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The third party of the judgment of the first instance court "refist damages" shall be calculated by adding "legal interest or delay damages" to "legal interest or delay damages."
The following shall be added to the fourth instance judgment of the first instance and the fourth 15th “Extinctive Prescription Claim” part.
The Defendants asserted that the instant sales contract was concluded for the purpose of making the Plaintiff complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants, even though the instant land is located within the land transaction permission zone, without going through the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendants’ name. Therefore, the said sales contract was finally null and void for the purpose of excluding or avoiding permission from the beginning. Therefore, the Defendants may claim for the return of KRW 60,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff under the invalid sales contract from June 24, 2004, which was paid by the Plaintiff. However, as long as the instant lawsuit was instituted after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, the statute of limitations for the right to claim the return of KRW 60,000,
At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the instant land was the land transaction permission zone.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the sales contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of the intermediate omission registration for the purpose of excluding or avoiding permission from the beginning as alleged by the Defendants.
Furthermore, as long as the contract is in a state of dynamic invalidation, it cannot be claimed as unjust enrichment as long as the contract is in a state of dynamic invalidation, and the state of dynamic invalidation becomes null and void, it shall be deemed unjust enrichment only when the contract becomes null and void.