The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. In citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below accepted the Plaintiff’s request that the Defendant make payment of the sales price of this case into the Jeju Bank account of the Intervenor, and deposited the entire sales price into the said account of the Intervenor on July 14, 2006, and held that the Defendant, one of the parties to the instant sales contract, was liable to return the sales price of this case to the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff, was the party to the instant sales contract, reduced the process of payment at the request of the Plaintiff, and directly paid to the Intervenor, a third party who

B. Furthermore, based on its adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that R, which was the chief director of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract, sold the previous land of this case to the Defendant even though he was well aware that the basic property of the school juristic person could not be effectively disposed of without a resolution of the board of directors and a disposition permission by the supervisory authority. In addition, the court below determined that the Plaintiff constitutes a malicious beneficiary, and thus, the Plaintiff should return the purchase price of this case to the Defendant by adding legal interest thereto, insofar as R, which was the chief director of the Plaintiff, was aware of the invalidity of the instant sales contract.

C. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the malicious beneficiary in return of unjust enrichment

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court, based on the evidence in its reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the previous lands of this case.