손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims changed in the trial, shall be modified as follows.
The plaintiffs.
1. Matters to be explained by the court on this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of L on the ground of sale on December 15, 2014 has been completed consecutively on the land of this case” at the end of the third 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff B is a party to the instant sales contract. While the instant sales contract was not lawfully rescinded, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiff B for damages incurred therefrom. Even if the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded, the Defendants may confiscate only the down payment, and the design authorization fee must be returned to the Plaintiff B by unjust enrichment. 2) Even if the Plaintiff was the party to the instant sales contract, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff A for the damages incurred due to the nonperformance of the duty to transfer ownership, and even if the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded, if the Plaintiff knew that the so-called contract title trust agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff and became the party to the instant sales contract, the instant sales contract was null and void, as the Defendants’ agent, and thus, the Plaintiff should return the entire design deposit and the design authorization fee to the Plaintiff A.
B. The Defendants’ assertion H or I is a party to the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff B is an investor to them, and the Plaintiff A was temporarily nominal purchaser until the purchaser was confirmed by finding a person eligible to obtain a loan as security on the instant land.