A. On January 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and the instant land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the intention to acquire the collateral security obligations of the relevant agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “instant collateral security obligations”) by paying the purchase price of KRW 680,00,000, down payment of KRW 80,000,000 at the time of the contract, and paying the remainder of KRW 600,000,000 on April 15, 2012.

B. On the date of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 295,00,000,000,000 among the remainder on April 17, 2012, and KRW 14,4,000,000, out of the remainder on May 25, 2012. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 370,000,000 for the instant collateral security obligation, and completed the registration of changing the debtor to the Plaintiff.

C. The instant land was 910 square meters at the time of the instant sales contract, but was combined with D forest land 78 square meters on October 17, 2014, and became 988 square meters.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry in Gap's 1.2 and 3 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Of the remainder under the instant sales contract, the Defendant agreed to borrow the instant land as a collateral and make up for the remainder of KRW 15 million. As such, the Plaintiff fully performed its obligation to pay the remainder by paying KRW 144 million around May 25, 2012. Since the Defendant acquired the instant collateral security obligation, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 78,225,829, total interest on the instant collateral obligation from June 2012 to September 2015, 2015, which was after the payment date of the remainder, to the Defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer. As such, the amount equivalent to the above interest was unjust enrichment by the Defendant without any legal ground.

In addition, the plaintiff was planning to build a new building after purchasing the real estate of this case and to operate a house, but it was due to the delay of the defendant's performance.