1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In fact, the defendant is the spouse of C.

On May 25, 2005, the Plaintiff and C entered into an agreement to develop and sell as housing sites the land of 29,554 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “D forest land before the division”) in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Plaintiff paid 82 million won to C with respect to the instant agreement.

Before subdivision, D Forest land was divided into D and 10 lots (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on December 27, 2005, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C on October 9, 2006, purchased the instant real estate in total at KRW 270 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, a spouse, on December 28, 2006.

C on December 28, 2007, sold the instant real estate in total of KRW 4.5 million to E and three others.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 and 10 (including each number), and the purport of the whole argument as a whole, Eul bears the obligation to pay 50% of the profits from the development of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case.

However, without notifying the plaintiff, C and the defendant have completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case, they reselled it and made unjust enrichment of KRW 180 million (=450 million-270 million).

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff development costs of KRW 15 million, which is 50 million out of the proceeds from the resale of the real estate of this case, and KRW 62 million, which is calculated by deducting the interim settlement amount of KRW 13 million, from the total development costs of KRW 50 million.

Judgment

It is recognized as above that the defendant and C are the spouse and that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate of this case.

However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant obtained the proceeds from the resale of the instant real estate solely based on the aforementioned circumstances, given that the aforementioned evidence, as seen earlier, and evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Nos. 1 through 5, and Nos. 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings: