매매대금반환
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
1. Evidence 【Evidence】 1-1 through 4, A2 through A8, A9-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. On November 24, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purchase of the instant sales right (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with regard to the purchase price of KRW 60 million with respect to the purchase price for the land for daily countermeasures in the D Housing Site District project that the Defendant would receive in lieu of the land of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant sales right”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant for the purchase price on the same day.
B. After the conclusion of a sales contract, the act of resale of the instant sales right, which the Defendant would be supplied, was prohibited as a matter of principle.
C. On the ground that the Defendant did not transfer the instant sales right to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed on December 31, 2007 to purchase the same amount to the Plaintiff or to refund the sales amount of KRW 60 million up to January 25, 2008.
2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court
A. According to the above facts, since the defendant's obligation to transfer the sales right of this case pursuant to the sales contract of this case cannot be fulfilled for reasons for which both parties are not responsible, the defendant has no right to hold the sales price received from the plaintiff according to the debtor risk burden principle.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price to the Plaintiff.
B. On August 14, 2008, the Defendant’s assertion (1) party’s assertion (A) Defendant’s wife acquired the Plaintiff’s membership status from the Sungnam of the Agricultural Partnership and transferred the Plaintiff the right according to the Plaintiff’s status as a partner instead of paying the said unjust enrichment, and thus, the obligation to return the said unjust enrichment was extinguished as repayment.
(B) The Plaintiff’s transfer of rights based on the status of the said partner is not a substitute for performance.