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

However, after the above sales contract, the right to purchase the living countermeasure site of this case can only be the object of the supply of the living countermeasure site because the association composed of the persons selected as the object of the supply of the living countermeasure site can become the object of the supply of the living countermeasure site. In the case of the sales contract, only a change in the name as a whole can be made only once, and it is not allowed for the association members to transfer their shares individually.

(2) On April 20, 2007, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act was amended, and on August 10, 2007, the supply of land for livelihood countermeasures was announced. Therefore, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the above purchase price of KRW 66 million as unjust enrichment.

(2) On February 5, 2004, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the seller is the party to a sales contract, i.e., the seller is the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the seller is the Defendant, taking into account the following facts and circumstances (i.e., evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Nos. 1 through 5, 1 through 5, 1 through 5, 1 of fact inquiries about Sungnam-si), and there is no other evidence to prove that the seller is the Defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the party to the above sales contract is the defendant is without merit.

1. On February 5, 2004, at the real estate brokerage office known to D through the introduction of D, the Plaintiff purchased the right to purchase the instant daily countermeasure site from the Defendant through E as a broker. At the time, there were many people at the time, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a state, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the purchase price of KRW 66 million to E, and the transfer note from E.