2012Gahap47864 Return, etc. of sale price

2012 Gohap48744 (Consolidation) Return of sale price, etc.

2012 Gohap61754 (Consolidation) Return of sale price, etc.

Attached Table 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff (Gang○○ et al., 122).

[Attachment 1] Law Firm Lee & Lee, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for early adoption

별지 원고 목록2 기재 원고들 소송대리인 법무법인 윈앤윈

Attorney Lee Gyeong-hwan

1. Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd.;

Gangnam-gu Seoul Central District Court 737 Gangnam-gu 19 floors

The representative director-gu;

2. △△ Corporation;

Incheon Southern Dong-gu

Representative Director Park*, this**

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, and Kim Jong-chul

January 16, 2013

January 30, 2013

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the pertinent amounts stated in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 of the sale price list, and each of the above amounts, 6% per annum from July 1, 2012 to January 30, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 6/7 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for the attached Table 1, 2, and 3

Section 1 and Section 1 and Section 2 of the same Table shall apply to each of the corresponding amounts and each of the above amounts, beginning on July 1, 2012.

'Plaintiff's assertion to the Plaintiffs in this case (2012Gahap47864, 2012Gahap487444)

Until the delivery date of a duplicate of the statement, Plaintiff 3 as indicated in the “Plaintiff 3” column of this case (2012 Ghana) shall apply to the Plaintiffs

61754) 6% per annum until the service date of a copy of a complaint, and 6% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

20% Payment shall be made in 20% interest.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are those who entered into a sales contract or succeed to the status of the buyer with the Defendants as to the △△ apartment located in △△△△△△ (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

2) Defendant Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Asset Trust”) is a company that purchased the instant apartment after being entrusted with the instant apartment from the executor of the instant new apartment construction project, and Defendant △△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant △△△”) is the contractor of the instant new apartment construction project.

B. The plaintiffs entered into a sales contract, special agreement, and balcony expansion contract 1) with the defendants on each corresponding date listed in the "supply Contract Date" column 1, 2, and 3 attached Table 1, 2, and 3 of the same Table among the apartment of this case, each of the corresponding apartment units listed in the "Supply Price" column 1, 2, and 3 of the same Table among the apartment of this case as the sale price (hereinafter "each of the sales contract of this case"). However, in the case of plaintiff Kim-ho, the apartment of this case was sold in lots at 109, 702, but after the conclusion of the above sales contract, the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho was succeeded to the status of the buyer from the sale price.

2) At the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, the Plaintiffs entered into each of the following special agreements with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant special agreements”).

○ The Defendant Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”), Defendant △△△ (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and buyer (hereinafter referred to as “B”) agree to comply with the following provisions which take precedence over the contents of each sales contract of this case.

Article 1 (Cancellation of Sales Contracts)

(1) When the apartment price of the above indicated property is formed by the average of the general average price of the apartment price of the national bank at the end of three months (90 days) from the following day after the end of the period for designating the occupancy designated by Gap and Byung, and Eul requests the cancellation of the sales contract, Byung and Byung shall consent to the cancellation of the sales contract.

(2) Where a contract for sale in lots has been cancelled pursuant to the preceding paragraph, Gap and Byung shall refund the down payment and intermediate payment already paid by Eul: Provided, That in such cases, Gap and Byung shall not pay additional interest on the price already paid by Eul.

(3) Where Gap and Byung have received a loan of an intermediate payment from a bank designated by Byung and Byung and pay the parcelling-out price, the principal and interest of Byung and Byung shall be repaid in lieu of Eul, and the total down payment he/she has paid shall be refunded without penalty.

Article 2 (Period of Application for Cancellation of Sales Contracts)

(1) Gap and Byung shall apply for cancellation of a contract by setting a separate period for application for cancellation after the occupancy designation ended, and where there is no application for cancellation of a sales contract by Eul during the same period, Eul and Eul shall recognize that there is no intention for cancellation of a sales contract, and this special agreement shall become null and void and maintain an apartment sales contract.

(2) The period for receipt of an application for cancellation of contract by Gap and Byung under the preceding paragraph shall be 15 days from the following day after the expiration of the occupancy designation period, and Gap and Byung shall not be obliged to separately notify the period for application for cancellation of contract to Eul.

3. The cancellation of a contract before or after the filing of a request for cancellation under Paragraph 2 above shall be in accordance with the contract for the supply (sale in lots) concluded between the two parties.

Article 3 (Matters to be Specified in Special Agreements)

(1) Where the down payment and the intermediate payment are paid in full, this special agreement shall take effect.

(2) Gap and Eul shall enter into a contract for sale in lots by mutual agreement with the above contents.

3. This Agreement shall not be succeeded to any other person in cases where it is transferred or acquired to a third party by means of resale, sale, etc. of sale rights under an agreement between A and B.

④ In addition, at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendants for the extension of the balcony of an apartment unit sold by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant balcony expansion contract”), respectively, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract.

C. The Plaintiffs paid the sales price and the price for balcony expansion as the sales price in attached Table 1, 2, and 3, the sum of the down payment in attached Table 1, 2, and 3, and the sum of the intermediate payment, and the balance, respectively, in the column of “the sum of the down payment” in attached Table 1, 2, and 3, and paid each amount as the price for balcony expansion in the column of “observer” in attached Table 1, 2, 3.

2) However, in the case of the amount directly paid by the plaintiffs among the down payment, the remaining amount (the amount indicated in the column of "loan of down payment" in attached Table 1, 2, and 3) as part of the plan to support the buyer, the plaintiffs paid each of the above money from the defendant △△ in accordance with each of the agreements (in the case of the plaintiffs who made the special agreement in this case, the repayment period has been extended from the date following the expiry date of the designation period of the occupancy to the point of three months) to pay it during the designation period of occupancy (hereinafter referred to as the "loan agreement of down payment in this case").

3) A) Meanwhile, among the contents of each of the instant sales contracts under Article 17, the relevant parts of the instant sales contract are as follows.

Article 17 (Agreement on Prepaid Payment of Interest on Part Payment Loans)

(1) The lending financial institution shall delegate the loan requested by the buyer to pay directly to the designated account prescribed in Article 1 (3) of the sales contract of this case, and shall apply for the loan to the lending financial institution designated by the defendant △△△ within seven days from the date of notification of the contract after full payment of the down payment.

(5) The payment of interest on part of part payments by the buyer shall be made by the day preceding the beginning date of occupancy during the period of occupancy designated by the defendant △△, and the interest on the loan shall be borne by the buyer.

9. Where the sales contract of this case is cancelled due to inevitable circumstances, the seller shall return the total amount of interest on loans that Defendant △△ has paid, and shall not raise an objection to any measure taken by Defendant △△△ if the sales contract of this case is not implemented.

B) The Korean National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”), and the Korean Bank, etc. entered into an agreement with the implementing company of the instant apartment construction project, and the Defendants on intermediate payment loan. The Plaintiffs borrowed each of the money listed in the column of “the amount of intermediate payment in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3” from the above financial institutions and paid intermediate payment. Each of the above intermediate payment loans was deposited directly from the above financial institutions into the payment account in the name of the Defendant Korean Asset Trust.

D. Since the unregistered registration of the market price of apartment in the National Bank, the occupancy designation period of the apartment in the instant apartment was set from January 30, 2012 to March 30, 2012.

2) In the instant apartment loan proposal prepared around February 2012, a national bank entered the scheduled date of entry into the KB City Information Disclosure in the instant apartment loan proposal after April.

3) On April 13, 2012, the committee on the emergency countermeasures against policyholders of the instant apartment complex sent a written request to the head of the National Bank Services Bureau for Real Estate in the Republic of Korea, and from June 30, 2012, when the general average of the KB apartment prices at the end of three months after the following day after the end of the designation period of occupancy at the time of June 30, 2012, the general average of the apartment prices is below the sale price, and before the end of six months under Article 1(1) of the instant special agreement, it was planned that the national bank Internet KB Apartment apartment prices will be cancelled under Article 1(1) of the instant special agreement, and the head of the National Bank Real Estate Planning Bureau for the Real Estate in the Republic of Korea at the time of April 25, 2012. The method of the KBS survey directly input the market prices to the above emergency countermeasure committee, and it is difficult to grasp the correct market prices at issue, and it is difficult to accept the registration between the K.

4) Ultimately, the national bank apartment price of the instant apartment is not registered as of June 30, 2012 until the date of closing argument of the instant apartment.

E. Defendant 1, around March 23, 2012, sent a notice stating that the period of application for cancellation of a sales contract under the instant special agreement will be changed from May 16, 2012 to May 30, 2012 to the seller, including the Plaintiffs.

2) From April 1, 2012 to May 29, 2012, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts under the instant special agreement, or submitted an application for cancellation.

【Unsatisfy-based dispute, Gap's entries in the evidence Nos. 2 through 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 66 through 106 (including each number), Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 8, 10 (including each number), Eul's evidence Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) did not register the apartment price of the National Bank for the apartment of this case. However, the purport of Article 1 (1) of the Special Agreement is to provide supplementary interpretation that, as of June 30, 2012, in the event that the apartment price of this case exceeds the sale price, the purchaser would be entitled to the right of rescission. In fact, the apartment price of this case is much more than the sale price. Thus, the plaintiffs lawfully rescinded each of the sales contracts of this case in accordance with the Special Agreement of this case.

B) Even if the above market price is not registered as the sole comparison standard under the interpretation of the above special agreement clause, even if the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiffs of the important considerations in entering into each of the above contracts at the time of each of the instant sales contracts. This constitutes deception by omission, and the Plaintiffs revoked each of the instant sales contracts on the grounds of fraud.

C) Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the sales price already paid by the Plaintiffs and the price for the expansion of balcony to the Plaintiffs.

2) In order for the Defendants to cancel each of the instant apartment sales contracts pursuant to Article 1(1) of the instant Special Agreement, the condition is attached to the case where the general average price of the apartment price of the national bank for the instant apartment as of June 30, 2012 is lower than the sale price. As of June 30, 2012, the national bank apartment price of the instant apartment is not registered, and the said condition is not fulfilled. The Plaintiffs’ cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts has no effect.

B) Article 1(1) of the instant Special Agreement provides the Plaintiffs with the right to cancel each of the instant sales contracts when the said conditions are fulfilled, and the Defendants are obligated to accept the cancellation. Therefore, it should be strictly interpreted. In addition to the apartment price of the national bank, other market prices than the apartment price of the national bank cannot be the standard for determining whether the above conditions are fulfilled, and it is not necessary to interpret it as supplementary.

C) In addition, it was not proven that the apartment price of this case was formed lower than the sale price.

B. Whether the rescission of each sales contract of this case under the special agreement of this case is legitimate

1) In general, the interpretation of a contract shall not be tweld with formal phrases, and shall be examined as to what is the genuine intent of both parties. In the event that there is any controversy over the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties involved in the interpretation of a contract, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8880, Jun.

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건 특별약정 제1조 제1항이 문언상 이 사건 아파트 시세가 입주지정기간종료일 익일부터 3개월 ( 90일 ) 시점 국민은행 아파트 시세 일반평균가를 기준으로 공급금액 ( 분양가 ) 이하로 형성되어 수분양자가 분양계약의 해제를 요청시에는 피고들이 분양계약의 해제를 승낙하여야 한다고 규정하고 있음은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그러나 앞서 본 증거들 및 갑가 제52호증의 3, 6, 갑가 제62호증의 1 , 2, 3의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고들은 이 사건 아파트 분양 당시 이 사건 아파트 홍보물에 ' 분양가 원금 보장제 ' 라고 기재하였고, 이 사건 각 분양계약 체결시 원고들에게도 이 사건 특별약정을 위와 같은 취지로 설명한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고들이 이 사건 특별약정 당시 원고들에게 이 사건 아파트에 대하여 이 사건 특별약정 제1조 제1항에서 정한 국민은행 아파트 시세가 등록되지 않을 경우에는 위 조항에 의하여 분양계약을 해제할 수 없다는 취지의 설명을 하였다고 볼 만한 자료가 없는 점, ③ 국민은행은 이 사건 각 분양계약상 중도금 대출은행으로 위 각 분양계약의 유지 여부에 이해관계를 가지고 있고, 실제로 국민은행이 2012년 2월경 작성한 이 사건 아파트 잔금대출제안서에는 KB시세정보 등재 예정일을 4월 중순 이후로 기재하였다가, 2012. 4. 25. 경 이 사건 아파트 중 원고들이 분양받은 45평에 관하여 매물 가격이 분양가 대비 이하로 형성되어 있는 상태임을 인정하면서도 거래가 없어 실거래가를 알 수 없고 조사중개업소에서 시세제공을 하지 않는다는 이유로 KB시세 등록이 어렵다는 취지의 회신을 한 이후 2012. 6. 30. 까지 시세 등록을 하지 않은 점에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 아파트에 대한 국민은행 아파트 시세의 등록 여부에 따라 위 특별약정 제1조 제1항에 의한 해제권 유무가 결정되도록 해석하는 것은 결국 위 특별약정에 따른 원고들의 해제권을 무의미하게 만들 우려가 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고들과 피고들은 이 사건 특별약정 당시 이 사건 아파트에 대한 국민은행 아파트 시세의 등록이 없는 경우를 예상하지 못한 것으로 보이고, 위 특별약정 당사자의 진정한 의사는 이 사건 아파트의 시세가 분양가 이하로 형성되는 경우 수분양자인 원고들이 분양계약을 해제할 수 있도록 한 것으로 해석함이 상당하다 . 2 ) 갑가 제56, 61, 62호증 ( 각 가지번호 포함 ), 갑나 제9호증의 각 기재, 감정인 김태정의 감정결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 이 사건 아파트 중 4층에 위치한 149. 32㎡ 주택형 아파트의 담보자문가격이 2012. 4. 18. 기준 410, 000, 000원인 사실 , 국민은행은 일부 원고들의 요구에 따라 KB시세정보가 없는 이 사건 아파트를 담보로 대출시 위 아파트 시세의 기준이 될 수 있는 예상가격의 조사를 KB신용정보 주식회사에게 의뢰하였는데, 조사 결과 2012. 6. 28. 및 2012. 7. 4. 기준 매매예상가격이 430, 000, 000원 또는 440, 000, 000원인 사실, 이 사건 아파트 중 원고들이 분양받은 주택형 아파트의 중개업소 매매가격이 2012. 7. 3. 기준 418, 000, 000원 내지 488, 000, 000원인 사실, 이 법원이 지정한 감정인 김정태가 평가한 이 사건 아파트 중 원고들이 분양받은 주택형 아파트의 2012. 6. 28. 기준 감정평가액은 395, 000, 000원 내지 407, 000, 000원 ( 발코니 확장이 안 된 상태를 전제로 한 가격은 389, 000, 000원 내지 399, 000, 000원 ) 인 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 이 사건 아파트 중 원고들이 분양받은 주택형 아파트의 분양가가 488, 000, 000원 또는 498, 000, 000원인 점을 더하여 보면, 입주지정기간종료일 익일부터 3개월 ( 90일 ) 시점인 2012. 6. 30. 당시 이 사건 각 분양계약의 목적물인 아파트의 시세가 분양가 이하로 형성되었다고 봄이 상당하다 . 3 ) 그렇다면 이 사건 각 분양계약은 원고들이 이 사건 특별약정 제1조 제1항에 의한 해제권을 행사함에 따라 적법하게 해제되었다고 할 것이다 ( 이 사건 특별약정 제2조 에 의하면 별도의 계약해제신청기간 ( 2012. 3. 31. 부터 2012. 4. 14. 까지 ) 이 정하여져 있는 사실, 이후 피고 △△이 2012. 3. 23. 경 분양계약 해제신청기간을 2012. 5. 16. 부터 2012. 5. 30. 까지로 변경하겠다는 내용의 안내문을 원고들에게 보낸 사실, 이에 따라

The Plaintiffs expressed to the Defendants the intent to cancel each of the instant sales contracts from April 1, 2012 to May 29, 2012 under the instant special agreement. As seen earlier, since the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts was made within the period of application, the lawful cancellation of the sales contract and the effect of the cancellation thereof came into effect on June 30, 2012 pursuant to Article 1(1) of the instant special agreement.

C. According to the above evidence, the contract for the expansion of balcony in this case was concluded under Article 2 (4) and the contract for the expansion of balcony in this case was also rescinded. Thus, the contract for the expansion of balcony in this case was also rescinded as the contract for each of the sales in this case was rescinded.

2) As long as each of the instant sales contracts and balcony expansion contracts has been lawfully rescinded, the validity of each of the instant contracts ought to be retroactively terminated, and accordingly the performance of the obligations under each of the above contracts ought to be returned to the Plaintiffs in unjust enrichment in order to restore the original state. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiffs the purchase price for each of the instant payments, the amount equivalent to the balcony expansion price, and the delay damages1).

3. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

A. The party's assertion that the portion of the down payment is the down payment (1) party's assertion

While the Defendants asserted that the full amount of the down payment already paid should be returned as unjust enrichment, the Defendants asserted that only the amount that the Plaintiffs directly paid (each 20,000,000 won), excluding the amount borrowed from Defendant △△, should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B) Determination

In addition to 20,00,000 won paid directly by the plaintiffs, in the case of the remaining amounts, the plaintiffs agreed to lend the down payment in this case with the defendant △△△, and made the payment after borrowing each of the above amounts. Although there was no actual movement of money, the plaintiffs paid the full down payment to the defendants. Thus, in addition to the fact that the defendant △△△ has a loan claim against the plaintiffs, the defendants should pay the full amount of the down payment (the amount stated in the "total sum of the down payment in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3" to the plaintiffs.

2) The parties’ assertion that part of part payments is part of the intermediate payment

The Plaintiffs asserts that the part payments, including part payments, which were already paid by the Defendants, should be returned to the Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that Article 1(3) of the Special Agreement provides that the Defendants shall reimburse the principal and interest of part payments, in the case of part payments loans, when the sales contract of this case is cancelled pursuant to the instant special agreement, and that the agreement includes an implied agreement that allows the buyers to repay the part payments within the scope of the part payments to be returned to the sellers instead of exercising the right to claim the refund of part payments against the buyers at the time of the cancellation of the sales contract. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the part payments are only obligated to be returned directly to the financial institutions, and that they do not

B) Determination

On the other hand, Article 1 (2) of the Special Agreement provides that where a sale contract is cancelled pursuant to Article 1 (1) of the above Special Agreement, the defendants shall return the down payment and the intermediate payment that the buyer paid at a time. Paragraph (3) of the above Special Agreement provides that the defendants shall pay the principal and interest of the loan and the interest expenses incurred therefrom on behalf of the buyer in the case of the buyer in the case of the buyer in installments with the loan of the intermediate payment and the payment for the intermediate payment made by the buyer in full, the defendants shall pay the down payment without penalty. Thus, Article 1 (3) of the Special Agreement provides that the plaintiffs and the defendants shall be deemed as the performance acceptance agreement to perform their obligations to repay each intermediate payment and its interest to financial institutions on behalf of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendants are not required to return the above obligation to the plaintiffs in accordance with the above performance agreement, and the defendants' assertion that the above payment for the intermediate payment should be returned to the above parties is contrary to the above performance agreement, and thus the defendants' obligation to pay the part payment to the defendants 2.

3) The remainder and the part of the balcony expansion cost are paid by the plaintiffs in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with each of the sales contracts in this case. The plaintiffs paid each of the amounts stated in the "observer Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the same Table" according to the balcony expansion contract in this case, and the plaintiffs paid each of the amounts stated in the "observer No. 1, 2, and 3 of the same Table" as above. The defendants are obligated to pay each of the amounts listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination as to the defendants' defense of set-off

1) The Defendants asserted that a loan claim against the Plaintiffs under the instant contract deposit lending agreement against Defendant △△△ is offset against the Plaintiffs’ above unjust enrichment claim.

In accordance with the agreement on the lending of down payment of this case, Defendant △△, as seen earlier, has a claim for payment of each amount stated in the column of “loan of down payment” in attached Table 1, 2, and 3 from the Plaintiffs. The both claims of the Plaintiffs and Defendant △△△ on June 30, 2012, which is the effective date of the cancellation of each contract for the sale of this case, reached the maturity date and reached the same day-off date. The facts that the Defendants delivered a copy of the preparatory document as of January 4, 2013, stating the declaration of set-off against the Plaintiffs on an equal amount of claims to the Plaintiffs on January 8, 2013 are apparent in the record. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment should be extinguished within the extent equivalent to the loans claims of Defendant △△△△, which is the date of the set-off of unjust enrichment, and eventually, the aforementioned plaintiffs’ defense against the Defendants is reasonable, and the amount set forth in attached Table 1, 2, and 3.

2) Meanwhile, according to Article 17(5) of the sales contract of this case, the Defendants are liable to the buyer for the interest on intermediate payment loans added after the commencement date of the designation period for occupancy of the apartment complex of this case. A majority of the Plaintiffs did not pay interest even after June 30, 2012, and Defendant △△△ paid each of the money indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 as an intermediate payment loan interest rate to financial institutions as an intermediate payment loan interest rate. Thus, Defendant △△△ protested to offset the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned unjust enrichment claim by the claim equivalent to the interest on intermediate payment loans acquired by subrogation.

On the other hand, the contents of the special agreement of this case give priority to the contents of each contract for sale in this case, and Article 1 (3) of the special agreement of this case provides that in the case of intermediate payment loans, the Defendants shall pay the principal and interest of interest as well as the interest expenses therefrom to the buyer on behalf of the buyer. As long as each contract for sale in this case has been legally rescinded pursuant to the special agreement of this case, the amount indicated in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3 of the special agreement as stated in attached Table 1 (3) of the above special agreement bears the duty of repayment by the Defendants. Thus, the defendants' defense of the above set-off is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant Korean Asset Trust

The defendant Korean Asset Trust confirmed that the management-type land trust contract for each object of sale in this case was concluded with the trustee for each item of sale in this case, and that the defendant Korean Asset Trust bears the responsibility only within the scope of trust property and trust contract. Thus, the defendant Korean Asset Trust provides that the scope of return of unjust enrichment for the defendant Korean Asset Trust shall be limited to the scope of trust property. However, the contents of the special agreement of this case shall take precedence over the contents of each contract in this case, and the special agreement of this case provides that the defendant △△△ and the defendant Korean Asset Trust shall return the down payment and intermediate payment paid by the buyer when the contract in this case is cancelled pursuant to the special agreement of this case. Accordingly, the defendant Asset Trust shall return the entire unjust enrichment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 1 (2) of the above special agreement. Thus, the defendant Asset Trust shall also bear the obligation to return the entire unjust enrichment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 1 (2) of the above special agreement.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to 1, 2, and 3's "amount quoted in attached Table 1, 2, and 3' with unjust enrichment, and each of the above amounts after the payment date of each of the above amounts as to each of the above amounts, which the plaintiff sought after the payment date of each of the above amounts, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from the date of this decision until January 30, 2013, which is the date of the decision of this decision, to pay damages for delay by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Cho Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant

Judges Lee So-young

Judges Lee Jong-sung

1) Pursuant to Article 548(2) of the Civil Act, the Defendants are also entitled to statutory interest from the date of payment of each purchase price of this case.

Although the plaintiffs are obligated to pay for the damages for delay after the date the termination becomes effective in this case, the plaintiffs shall only seek damages for delay.

section 22.

2) On the day following the set-off date.