beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 3 to No. 15). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits is proved to the effect that, since the defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits of this case is C, the purchaser of the right to purchase this case does not have standing to sue
However, in a performance lawsuit, it is not necessary for a person who asserts that he/she is a right to sue and is not a right to demand performance, and whether he/she actually has the right to demand performance should be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994; 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff purchased the instant water unit from the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 35 million from the Defendant, and such sales contract is null and void as it intends to resell the housing unit supplied in the future before entering into the housing site supply contract, and the Defendant is obligated to refund interest or delay damages on the purchase price of KRW 35 million paid in unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff and the seller are liable to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff entered into the instant water unit sale contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant, a seller, bears the duty to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, at the time, sold L, a licensed real estate agent, to H Licensed Real Estate Office C operating the instant water unit, and the Defendant sold the instant water unit to the H Licensed Real Estate Office, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not the parties to the instant water unit sale contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant first asserted that they were not the Plaintiff and the Defendant.