1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant against the conjunctive claim exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the housing site for migrants (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff on April 17, 2014 that sold the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the housing site for migrants.

B. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with F to the effect that the Defendant was supplied with Pyeongtaek-si E-type 280 square meters (hereinafter “instant migrants’ housing site”) from F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that there is no standing to be the defendant since he did not receive the purchase price from the plaintiff.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as the person entitled to exercise the standing to sue and has the standing to be the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require the existence of standing to sue, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not require it to be the person in charge of performance or the person in charge of performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). Whether there is a right to demand performance or not is a right to demand performance or not shall be proved through the deliberation of the merits. The defendant's defense prior to the merits is merely an argument about the existence of the right to demand performance which

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. Determination as to the main claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff paid 80,000,000 won to the Defendant as the purchase price under the instant sales contract. The Defendant paid 34,069,000 won for the instant sales contract and 51,121,00 won for the first intermediate payment under the instant sales contract, which the Defendant paid to F according to the instant sales contract, respectively, and the Defendant is obligated to return the said unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. 2) Alternatively, G paid 83,00,000 won to the Defendant on March 11, 2014, and the Plaintiff.