2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell and purchase the instant store owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales”) and paid the sales price, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and that, on October 22, 2014, from the date of payment of the balance of the sales price, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment at the rate of one million won per month from the date of delivery to the date of completion of delivery of the instant store.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to invalidate the instant sales contract when the lessee of the instant store purchases the instant store from the Defendant at the time of the instant sales contract, and the lessee actually purchased the instant store, and thus, the instant sales contract is null and void.

2. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3, 6, 7, and 8, and witness E's testimony.

On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant store owned by the Defendant in KRW 35 million, and paid the down payment of KRW 5 million on the contract date, and the remainder amount shall be determined as KRW 3 million on October 22, 2014, respectively, and the remainder shall be determined as KRW 3 million as a special agreement. As a special agreement, the Plaintiff determined as follows: “In the case of the D store's stores, the store shall be used as it is if it is, and if it is not possible to purchase it, the store shall be transferred to the buyer.”

B. After that, upon the Defendant’s refusal to receive any balance, the Plaintiff deposited the remainder KRW 30 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit on October 22, 2014.

C. Accordingly, on October 24, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant store to the Plaintiff, and sent to the Plaintiff proof that the instant sales contract was null and void, but did not serve on the Plaintiff, and on November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff on the same ground.