A. In a sales contract for the occurrence of the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the object and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient if the method and criteria to specify it ex post facto are established. However, since the indication of the object is too abstract in the sale of real estate, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract is established if the method and criteria to specify it in detail after the execution of the contract are too abstract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da26176 delivered on January 24, 1997). The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with respect to the instant case on May 2003, stating that “the Plaintiff purchases part of the Defendant’s land located in the Chungcheongnam-gun budget C from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not specify the subject matter and the price of the instant sales contract in detail, and did not specify specific methods or standards for specifying them thereafter. Thus, the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to have been concluded since there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant’s following from the Plaintiff.

As seen in paragraph (1), the sales price received pursuant to the instant sales contract is profits without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff sustained losses equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the sales price received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that between May 26, 2003 and January 26, 2005, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 180,250,000 as the purchase price based on the instant sales contract (as indicated in the first detailed statement).

Plaintiff

With respect to the payment of KRW 108,00,000 of the claimed purchase price.