부당이득금반환
1. The cancellation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the cancellation part of the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed;
2...
1. Facts of premise;
(a) while implementing the E Housing Site Development Project, the Korea Land Corporation was planning to supply the land for livelihood countermeasures by selecting those who will be supplied as a part of compensation for the original residents of the zone and by concluding a contract for sale and purchase with the union consisting of them;
B. On December 8, 2003, the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, established a “D Licensed Real Estate Agent” inHanam-si C, and, in principle, is the right to sell a certain area of land owned by the original residents selected as a supply subject who is prohibited from resale under the laws and regulations at the time.
In other words, in order for the original residents who are in a position to finally purchase a certain area of land to acquire the ownership of the real land, an association composed of the original residents who can purchase the individual land to be sold by Korea Land Corporation in a lump sum shall be established, and the association shall be a party to the land construction project and a sale plan shall be concluded with the Korea Land Corporation and then the association shall be distributed in accordance with the shares of each union member.
The sale and purchase of a well-known area has been mediated for the convenience of the sale and purchase (including a well-known area).
C. On May to December 2005, the Plaintiff also purchased six number of purchase rights (six persons, including the original resident F, G, H, I, J, and K) as the Defendant’s intermediary (45,000,000 won per unit purchase price) and paid the Defendant KRW 270,00,000 (=45,000,000 won x 6).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment is recognized
A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) The mediation agreement between the original defendant is null and void in violation of Article 15 subparagraph 4 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, where the mediation agreement between the original defendant prohibits the mediation of the right to purchase the land for livelihood countermeasures, and even if the agreement is valid, there is no means that the plaintiff would pay the mediation fee to the defendant. Thus, the purchase price of the right to purchase and sale paid by the defendant to the original resident = 30,000 each