1. As to the appeal against the instant counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the instant counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the following additional changes or additional determination of the parties’ allegations, and thus, it is identical to the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The defendant from "the defendant has paid" to "the third seventh of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

From the fourth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance to the fifth bottom to the first half shall be changed as follows:

The Defendants filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment 1) deposited the purchase price of each of the instant real estate into the Plaintiff’s account, or received receipts prepared in the Plaintiff’s name after paying the money. Therefore, if a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on each of the instant real estate becomes null and void, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the purchase price received from the Defendants to the Defendants by unjust enrichment. (B) Even if the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Defendants, even if the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to compensate for unjust enrichment, the J completed the above procedure even if the Plaintiff was the representative of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not have the right to dispose of each of the instant real estate, such as the Plaintiff’s resolution, but the J did not have the right to dispose of each of the instant real estate, and received the purchase price from the Defendants after concluding a sales contract and transferring the registration. This is a case where the Plaintiff, the representative of the Plaintiff, caused damage to another person, under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act by analogy.

2) Determination of a claim for return of unjust enrichment is based on the principle of equity in cases where the gain of the benefiting person’s property did not have any legal cause.