(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff’s above-mentioned business permission agreement was concluded between Nonparty 1, 2, and 4, including the Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1 and Nonparty 1, for the above-mentioned business permission for the above-mentioned business, and the Plaintiff’s above-mentioned business permission agreement was concluded on the first floor of the Gyeonggi-do Tourist Hotel for less than 406,000 won on the ground that it would not be possible for the Plaintiff to acquire the above-mentioned business permission for the above 1,000 won and the above 1,000 won shares of the Plaintiff’s 2,000 won. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was liable for the above-mentioned business permission for investment in kind to the Plaintiff on May 29, 1989 by purchasing the above-mentioned business permission agreement with the 1,500,000 won for the above-mentioned business of the Plaintiff’s 1,500,000 won and the above 1,000 won shares of the Plaintiff’s shares.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the above contract is merely the right of lease of the above room and that it is not the right to operate the above business. Since the defendant's right to lease is legally transferred to the plaintiff under the agreement of the above non-party 2 who is the lessor pursuant to each above contract, there is no room for application of the legal principles on risk burden premised on the impossibility of performance, the court below held that even if the above hotel is being newly constructed at the time of each contract as mentioned above, there was no room for running the business in the above room, and even if the plaintiff becomes one of the above common tenants after the above contract was concluded, the above contract as well as each of the above contracts as well as the above contracts as well as the contracts as well as the contracts before and after the conclusion of the contract, it cannot be viewed that the above contract cannot be applied to the plaintiff as the right to lease of the above room and the above contracts cannot be applied to the plaintiff as a right to use the above general entertainment because it is no longer necessary for the defendant to request the above revision of the law as a right to use the above general entertainment as its own interest.

(2) In light of the records, the above fact-finding measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the object of each of the above sales contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant is a comprehensive right to deliver the above entertainment room within the scope of the above ratio of shares and claim for distribution of business profits by jointly operating the entertainment room. Thus, the court below interpreted the object of the above sales contract as above in the same purport. Thus, the defendant purchased and sold part of his own shares and the shares of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 to the plaintiff 2 to the plaintiff in accordance with the above sales contract, and has a duty to deliver the above entertainment room within the limit of the ratio of shares and to cooperate in the above entertainment jointly operating the above entertainment room, and the defendant's above obligation cannot be performed due to the amendment of laws and regulations as seen above, in light of the legal principles as well as the records, it cannot be justified.

(3) The lower court determined that, inasmuch as the Defendant’s obligation based on the above sales contract was unable to be performed due to a cause for which both the Defendant and the Defendant were not responsible, the Defendant, in accordance with the principle of risk burden (Article 537) under the Civil Act, instead of releasing his/her own obligation, was liable to return as unjust enrichment the sum of KRW 3,100,000,000,000 paid from

However, according to the records, each of the sales contracts of this case purchased uncertain and uncertain shares for the purpose of joint operation of a business establishment with a business license in a newly constructed tourist hotel at the time of the sale contract, and has considerable dynamic elements, such as that the plaintiff already operated a business establishment in another place, and has extensive knowledge and experience in the business of operating a business of operating a business at a different place. In consideration of the profits that a hotel has not yet completed a business license in the future at the time of the sale contract and the profits that a business license for a business of operating a business has not yet been made in an uncertain state, the share in the business of this case was purchased at a price without putting the house (the purchase price of the share in the business of this case which constitutes a part of the business partnership) and it was purchased under a circumstance that the purchase price of the share in this case was sufficiently pre-determined to show the risk of uncertainty, and the court below should interpret the contract to the effect that the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the above 10,000 won of the share in this case's sales contract to the extent it did not affect the contract.

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)