1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant B, which constitutes the following amount of payment:

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In order to prepare a site for the construction of a golf course in the first week of Pakistan, the Plaintiff entered into a land sales contract with the remaining Defendants and network M except Defendant M (designated parties, hereinafter “Defendant M”) and paid the down payment or intermediate payment to them. However, for the following reasons, the remaining Defendants except Defendant M and the deceased M et al.’s heir, and the Defendant M et al., the deceased M et al.’s heir, are liable to pay the Plaintiff the down payment or intermediate payment and damages for delay, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff due to the return of unjust enrichment.

1) Each land subject to a claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from the invalidity of a contract for the purchase and sale of each of the above land is all the land subject to a land transaction permission area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the former Protection of Military Installations Act (amended by Act No. 8733, Sep. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In order to construct a golf course within the military facility protection zone pursuant to the above, land transaction permission and consent from the military unit having jurisdiction over the strike market was required. However, on June 30, 2008, the competent military unit expressed the opinion that the Plaintiff consented to the construction of the Plaintiff’s golf course as a result of the examination of military operations. Accordingly, the remaining Defendants and the network S, excluding the Plaintiff and Defendant M, could not obtain land transaction permission from the mayor of the strike, and as such, each of the above land sales contract was finally null and void on June 30, 2008, as the agreement of the military unit on the trade of the golf course was not fulfilled. Accordingly, each of the above land sales contract was finally null and void on June 30, 2008. Therefore, the down payment or intermediate payment already paid by the Plaintiff is subject to return of unjust enrichment without any legal cause. 2) In the bilateral contract subject to the principle of obligor risk burden, the debtor is unable to perform his/her obligation