2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, since the sales right of this case is prohibited by individual members, the above sales contract is invalid as the cause thereof is or by the defendant's deception.

Therefore, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment and thus, is obligated to return it.

2. First of all, we examine whether there was an act of entering into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant sales right.

Witness

D according to the testimony of D, it was true that there was an act of selling and selling the instant water ownership on October 16, 2008. However, the contracting party is not the plaintiff and the defendant, but the defendant decided to sell the above water ownership to F, a representative director E, a corporation, the business operator, and the defendant, and the witness received 60 million won from F, and delivered it to the defendant. The purchaser's name of the sales contract (Evidence A 1) is recorded in convenience. In particular, at the time of the above sales contract's purchase and sale contract's name was not entered in the buyer's name, it appears that the group later appears that the land owner was the husband of the plaintiff and the head of the cooperative of the housing site development project of the C, the plaintiff and G had no place at the time of the contract.

In light of the above testimony, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff and the check asserted by the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff’s request for financial transaction information to the NongHyup Co., Ltd. in this court is indicated with the endorsement of the above witness, and the check is deemed to have been deposited into the account under the name of the Defendant and his H, but only this fact is deemed to have been concluded between the Plaintiff