1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 57,00,000 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related thereto, from October 30, 2017 to May 9, 2018.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract was concluded between the defendant and the plaintiff on June 13, 2016, which was after the conclusion of the instant contract for sale in lots. The evidence submitted by the defendant and its assertion alone are insufficient to recognize that KRW 57,00,000 paid as the price for the instant contract for sale in lots of the instant migrants site constitutes illegal consideration. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the evidence submitted by the defendant and its assertion are added.

The Gyeonggi-do Urban Development Corporation at the bottom of the 2nd 7th Myeon shall be changed to "Korea Land and Housing Corporation".

"Cases of housing construction sites supplying housing construction sites" at the bottom of 6 to 7 level shall be "cases of receiving housing construction sites".

6. On the 11th page, the part " regardless of the source of money paid by the Plaintiff" and the part "12-14 of the same face shall be deleted."

"Gu one" at the bottom of six pages shall be changed to "Gu one".

The 7th 1st 6th 1st 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th

“When a bona fide beneficiary has lost even if he/she was a bona fide beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be deemed to be the beneficiary of the lawsuit (Article 749(2) of the Civil Act). In this case, the term “when a lawsuit is brought” means when a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment is pending, namely, when a duplicate of the complaint is served on the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014). As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff legal interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from October 30, 2017 to May 9, 2018, when the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014).