1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the agreement under the original sales contract of Plaintiff 1 (160 million won for the purchase) was changed to the agreement under the second sales contract (120 million won for the purchase price), the Defendant received KRW 160 million for the purchase price from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant should return the excess KRW 40 million for the purchase price.

(The plaintiff asserts the validity of the first sales contract at the court of first instance. (The plaintiff asserts the above as the ground of the second sales contract at the court of first instance.)

Even at the time of the preparation of the secondary sales contract, the actual sales price was KRW 160 million, as in the previous case, but the sales price was stated as if there were causes of KRW 120 million upon the Defendant’s request. Therefore, the Defendant did not have to return the sales price as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

(a) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable grounds.

However, if an explicit or implied agreement different from the content of the disposal document is acknowledged, facts different from the content of the written agreement can be acknowledged. The interpretation of the author’s legal act can be freely determined by free evaluation within the extent not inconsistent with logical and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da242440, Jul. 26, 2018). (B)

The fact that the second sales contract was made up of KRW 120 million on September 16, 2015, based on the first sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the basis of the first sales contract, and around September 16, 2015, the second sales contract was made up of KRW 120 million. According to the evidence No. 2, the Defendant received KRW 160 million from the Plaintiff on the same day.