Since the sales contract was finally null and void, the seller shall return the sales price to the seller as unjust enrichment.

Of the land within the land transaction permission zone, the instant land sold to a third party during the voluntary auction procedure, and became impossible to perform the obligation to transfer the ownership of the instant land under the initial sales contract. As such, the initial sales contract in a state of passive invalidation was finally null and void, the seller is obligated to return the sales price already received to a third party for unjust enrichment.

2011Tit 23036 Undue gains

Korea

AAA Class B:

October 24, 2012

November 15, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from November 18, 201 to November 15, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 3/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

From July 4, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case, the defendant shall pay 000 won with 5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On August 9, 2006, the Defendant entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the first sales contract of this case") with respect to the purchase price of 14,500 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the first sales contract of this case") from among the O00 forest 7,255 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "O0 forest 7, and hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") in the land transaction permission area between GaB and GaB, and GaB paid the Defendant the purchase price of 1.00 won on August 11, 2006 and 00 won on August 14, 2006, and 00 won on November 2, 2007, respectively.

(2) 이 사건 토지는 화성시 양감면 OO리 004 임야 2，980㎡ 같은 리 00 임야 2，980㎡' 같은 리 00 임야 1，432㎡， 같은 리 007 임야 1，489㎡ 같은 리 00 임야 2，980㎡， 같은 리 009 임야 2，639㎡로 각 분할되었고 박BB은 2007. 3. 14. 정HH， 최II와 사이에 위와 같이 분할된 각 토지에 관하여 매매대금을 000원으로 정하는 매매계약(이하，'이 사건 제2 매매계약'이라 한다)을 체결하고， 정HH， 최II는 2008. 7. 4. 박BB에게 위 매매대금을 지급하였다.

B. On October 1, 2010, the head of the Suwon Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a notice to pay KRW 000 of the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2009 to HaH on October 31, 2010, and to the last II on September 10, 2010 to pay KRW 000 of the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2009 as of September 30, 201, while HaH and the last II did not pay it.

다. 피고의 채권자인 발안농업협동조합은 피고 소유의 화성시 양감면 OO리 00 임야 2，980㎡， 같은 리 00 임야 2，980㎡， 같은 리 00 임야 1.432㎡ 중 653.09㎡' (이하 '이 사건 매각 토지'라 한다)에 대하여 수원지방법원에 임의경매를 신청하여 위 법원은 2010. 11. 25. 수원지방법원 00000O00000호로 임의경매개시결정을 하였고 이 사건 토지는 2011. 7. 21. 위 경매절차에서 고JJ， 천KK에게 매각되어， 이 사건 매각 토지에 관하여 같은 날 고JJ， 천KK 앞으로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

(d) GaB, HaH, and O are currently in excess of their obligations;

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 4, and 8 through 19 (if available, including any number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

From the instant land located within the land transaction permission zone, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to a third party at any discretion, and the instant sales contract was finally null and void. As such, ParkBB has a claim against the Defendant for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 000,00, which is the purchase price under the first sale contract of this case, and the instant claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 00,00, which is the purchase price under the second sale contract of this case, HaH, and Ha II against HaB, and the Plaintiff has a claim for transfer income tax against HaH and MaO, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 00,00 and interest or delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff, who was subrogated by HaH and HaB in succession, and HaH and HaB as Ha and Ha II.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, among the land in this case within the land transaction permission zone, the land in this case was sold to a third party during the voluntary auction procedure, and the obligation to register ownership transfer to the land in this case was impossible under the first and second sales contract of this case, and the first and second sales contract of this case was finally null and void. Thus, the defendant has a duty to return 00 won which was already paid to ParkB, and ParkB had a duty to return 00 won which was already paid to Park H and the lastO as unjust enrichment, and ParkB had a duty to return 00 won which was paid to the plaintiff in this case under the second sales contract of this case. The plaintiff is currently in excess of the debt, and the plaintiff is the creditor of Ho and the last II, and the H, the H and the lowest and second and second sale contract of this case were finally null and void. Thus, the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, and barring any special circumstances, the plaintiff is obliged to pay 00 won or delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

The defendant, under the sales contract of this case from ParkB, received 00 won out of the purchase price on November 2, 2007 from ParkB, but returned the above 00 won to ParkB on the same day. The defendant's defense is reasonable, since ParkB deposited the above 00 won to the defendant's national bank account on November 2, 2007, and ParkB deposited the above 00 won in light of the fact that ParkB deposited 00 won in the above account on the same day with the company bank account of ParkB on the same day, and ParkB shall return the purchase price under the sales contract of this case and deposited the above 00 won in the company account of ParkB as the return of the purchase price under the first sales contract of this case, and it is reasonable to deem that ParkB deposited the above 100 won into the company account of ParkB.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from November 18, 201, which is the date of the lawsuit of this case (00 won - 000 won) to the plaintiff, and from November 18, 201, the date of the lawsuit of this case, to November 15, 201, when the defendant claims against the defendant about the telephone parts and scope of the obligation to perform, and from November 18, 201, to November 15, 2012, the date of the decision of this case (the plaintiff is obligated to pay interest or delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and from July 4, 2008 to the date of full payment (the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the return of unjust enrichment of this case to the defendant before the date of the lawsuit of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, and the defendant does not have any obligation to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the other claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.