부당이득금 반환 및 손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Basic Facts
On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) to purchase KRW 165 square meters of G forest at KRW 45 million in Chungcheong City.
After that, on April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant-B entered into a contract to purchase KRW 165/32480 of F forest land in lieu of the above forest land in 32,480 square meters and purchase KRW 44,100,000, in lieu of the above forest land.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff fully pays the sales price and completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the forest land.
Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant CB.
Defendant D is the actual operator of H which has conducted real estate sales business with Defendant DB, and Defendant E is the director of H who has conducted the real estate sales business of neighboring land.
[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's purchase and sale contract of this case can have a difference between five to ten times the prices of 10 times the annual interest rate, including forest land subject to sale and purchase, developed as a hot spring set, within three years. The sale and sale contract of this case is invalid because it constitutes an unfair legal act by using the plaintiff's old-age, rashness, andless experience, which had no expertise and experience in real estate development, lack of social experience, and was imminent old-age preparation, and thus, constitutes an unfair legal act.
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the purchase price and the cost required for the registration of transfer of ownership as compensation for unjust enrichment or tort.
Judgment
With respect to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the other Defendants except the defendantB who is a party to the contract of this case is without merit. Thus, the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant B shall be examined.
Defendant 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including paper numbers) are comprehensively taken into account the purport of the entire pleadings.