With regard to this, the plaintiff appealed against the whole judgment of the first instance court, and then the claim for damages caused by the above illegal act was first revised to add the claim for return of unjust enrichment to the defendant, under the premise that the sales contract with the defendant is null and void because of its original impossibility.

On January 21, 2016, this Court dismissed all the plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim against the defendant added by this Court prior to the remand.

On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of this court prior to remanding. The judgment of remanding was reversed only the ancillary claim against the Defendant among the judgment of this court prior to remanding on October 12, 2017, and remanded to this court. The Plaintiff’s appeal against B and the primary claim against the Defendant were dismissed in entirety. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against B and the primary claim against the Defendant were separated and finalized by the judgment of remand.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's trial after remand is limited to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant that has been reversed and remanded.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that trades, develops, and implements real estate (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and the Defendant B is the representative of the above company, and the Plaintiff served as the Defendant’s employee from July 15, 2013 to January 30, 2014.

B. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased 628 square meters of a specific location (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant, within the limit of 20,286 square meters, within the limit of KRW 40,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).