1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 150 million by adding up the right to purchase housing sites located in Goyang-si, Goyang-si and the right to purchase housing sites located in Goyang-si and the right to purchase housing sites for livelihood countermeasures, and paid the full purchase price to the Defendant.

However, the defendant, after examining the plaintiff's claim for performance related to the right to sell the land for livelihood countermeasures and being admitted to the commercial union, sold the status as the purchaser of the contract for the supply of the land for livelihood countermeasures entered into with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and then the plaintiff could not eventually purchase the land for livelihood countermeasures.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s termination of the part of the sales contract for the purchase price of the land for livelihood countermeasures on the ground of nonperformance. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million equivalent to the purchase price and the delay damages therefor, and even if the part of the sales contract is in violation of the mandatory provisions and is null and void, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment is deemed to exist. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the above KRW 30 million

B. Although the Defendant traded 1550 million won of the ownership of the housing site subject to relocation in Goyang-si with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not conclude a sales contract with regard to the ownership of the housing site subject to relocation in Goyang-si.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as follows, the possibility that the sales contract for the right to purchase the land for livelihood measures, other than the right to purchase the land for migrants and the Defendants, was concluded separately cannot be ruled out. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the sales contract for the right to purchase the land for livelihood measures was concluded together with the sales contract for the right to purchase the land for migrants, it can be determined by classifying the purchase price for the right to purchase the land for relocation and the right to purchase the land for livelihood measures, as alleged by the Plaintiff.