1.The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim for exchange change in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

(e).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court's ruling is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for adding to the judgment on the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage which is exchanged in the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

[Supplementary part] Article 18 of the first instance court's decision " May 18, 2010" is added to "No. 10 of the first instance court's decision and No. 7 of the first instance court's decision", and "if so, the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff's expression of intent for rescission, which was caused by the network B's delay of performance." The sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff's expression of intent for rescission. From 10 of the first instance court's decision, Chapters 12 through 13, 8 of the first instance court's decision are as follows.

C. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendants, who are the parties to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the royalty (1) and the Defendants, who are the parties to the claim, indirectly occupied the real estate indicated in the attached sheet. As such, the Defendants, from June 3, 2009, the delivery date of the real estate indicated in the attached sheet, to the date of ordering the Plaintiff to surrender the real estate indicated in the attached sheet (the annual KRW 4,560,000), filed a claim with the Plaintiff at an amount below the annual amount of KRW 4,60,000, which is the result of the appraisal. Accordingly, the Defendants were accordingly subject to

There is a duty to return the amount equivalent to each share of the unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the rent in proportion to the ratio of the rent.

(B) Meanwhile, the main text of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the duty of restitution as the effect of cancelling a contract, has the nature of a special provision on unjust enrichment. As such, the scope of return of benefit is all the part of the benefit received, barring special circumstances, regardless of whether the benefit exists or not, good faith, or bad faith (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da47586, Dec. 9, 197). The Defendants’ assertion to the effect that there is no obligation of restitution of unjust enrichment as the possessor in good faith.

(2) The defendants' offset defense and concurrent performance defenses set-off defenses and set-offs by the defendants.