The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 143,000,000 for the purchase of the purchase of the housing site for the relocation of Pyeongtaek-si D, owned by Nonparty C.

The Plaintiff received relevant documents from the Defendant and paid the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 143 billion.

In this regard, C does not have been notified by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which is a project implementer, to select a person to be supplied with a housing site for migrants, and the purpose of the above sales contract is null and void as it is an original impossibility, and the above sales contract is null and void in violation of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

As such, since a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant becomes null and void in violation of the principal impossible or compulsory law, the Defendant is obligated to return the purchase price to the Plaintiff as a contracting party, and even if the Defendant is not a party to a sales contract, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation that he/she would return the purchase price to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2019, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the purchase price of KRW 143 million and delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) As long as the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the content of the document, unless there is any counter-proof. However, even if the disposition document is a document, if there is any special or implied agreement different from the content of the written agreement, it may recognize facts different from the content of the written agreement. Moreover, in interpreting the legal act of the originator, it may be determined by free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418, Jul. 12, 1991, etc.) to the extent that it does not go against the rule of experience and logic (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418, Jul. 12, 1991, etc.) Gap 1 and 3, according to each of the evidence, the Plaintiff is from the Defendant “documents securing a right to the ownership of the leased land from Pyeongtaek-si.”