부당이득금 반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased three lots of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant, including Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-si, D, and E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At the time, the Plaintiff entered into a special agreement as follows:
“O The Agreement refers to the area of 177.2 square meters and the excessive area of 57.7 square meters on the said lot number. The zero excessive area of 57.7 square meters shall be paid to the project executor by the buyer. The zero area of 57.7 square meters in excess area (85.00,000 square meters) shall be paid by the buyer in cash to the seller.
B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 86,521,150 as liquidation money for the excessive size of 57.7 square meters according to the land substitution. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit upon receiving a notice of collection of liquidation money to additionally pay KRW 97,772,650, excluding the amount paid, the final amount collected for the excessive area of KRW 184,293,80,000, which was the final amount collected for the above excessive area.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Evidence A1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff confirmed the liquidation amount of KRW 86,521,150 for the excessive area to the Urban Development Project Association prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and received the answer of KRW 86,521,150 at the time, and in such case, the Plaintiff paid KRW 85,00,000 to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, on the ground that the Plaintiff considered a large amount of benefits. As above, a large amount of liquidation amount was imposed in this case. As such, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the excessive area preservation cost of KRW 85,00,000 for the excessive area preservation cost due to mistake, the said declaration of intention was revoked by the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and sought restitution
B. As to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, even regarding the excessive area of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was given such answer.
Even if there is a change in the circumstances, the liquidation amount shall be changed.