The plaintiff's selective claims added by this Court are dismissed.

A. The plaintiff's assertion that he purchased the right to purchase the land for livelihood countermeasures within the E zone of D from the defendant as a broker of C (hereinafter "the right to purchase the land in this case") and paid the defendant KRW 62 million through C.

However, D is not only the buyer of the land for livelihood countermeasures, but also the above sale of the purchase and sale of the purchase right is null and void in violation of the relevant laws and regulations.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above purchase price to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

나. 판단 갑 제3, 4호증의 각 기재, 제1심 증인 C의 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① C과 F 등은 권리확보서류를 넘겨 받는 방식으로 수분양권을 매수한 후 이를 다시 제3자에게 처분하는 방식의 영업(일명 떴다방)을 한 것으로 보이는 점, ② C이 원ㆍ피고 간의 매매를 중개하였다

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the Defendant as the opposite contractual party, and ③ the Defendant’s documents for securing the right to sell the instant water, but the Plaintiff appears to have paid the Plaintiff KRW 62 million to the F, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff purchased the instant water purchase right from the Defendant solely based on the statement of the evidence No. 2 and the witness C of the first instance trial, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on different premise is without merit.

2. Determination as to a claim based on the exercise of creditor's subrogation right added in the trial

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant sold the sales right of this case to F, and F sold it to the plaintiff again.

Since each of the above sales contracts on the sales right of this case is null and void as an act of pre-sale, the plaintiff is the F, and the F is the defendant equivalent to the purchase price under the invalidation of each sales contract.