매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 27, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed from the Defendant to purchase the front store of D Elementary School located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant old store”). The fact that the Plaintiff paid the full payment of the purchase price to the Defendant from the date above to April 13, 2016 does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid the full payment of the purchase price to the Defendant from the date above to April 13, 2016 can be acknowledged according to the respective entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's judgment on the plaintiff's claim is prohibited from trading under the mandatory law, but the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void under private law. Therefore, since the purchase price of KRW 30,000,000 is not based on the ground that the defendant is not entitled to receive it, the plaintiff of this case is entitled to return it as the lawsuit of this case.
On the other hand, the old store of this case was established without obtaining permission from the competent Gu office. The defendant, who owned the old store of this case, operated its business without removal from the competent Gu office under the condition that it will not transfer it to another person. The fact that the old store of this case was forced removal by the competent Gu office due to the plaintiff's civil petition, etc. filed after the purchase of the old store of this case, is not disputed between the parties, but the defendant who owned the old store of this case is merely subject to administrative control and disposition, and Article 61 of the Road Act, which is the basis of the provision for permission to occupy and use the road, is merely subject to administrative control and disposition, and even if the defendant sold the old store of this case while he operated his business in violation of this provision, it is difficult to see that Article 103 of the Civil Act was violated. In addition, even if there was no law that prohibits the sale and purchase of the old store of this case, the old store of this case was enacted in relation to the old office's control, etc., it is a