1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Jeonju District Court 2017 tea3537.

1. Basic facts

A. E who has resided in the project zone of the D District Development Project is in a position to be supplied with the housing site by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, etc. in case of determining the subject of supply of the said housing site for migrants.

On October 4, 2013, E entered into a sales contract with H to sell the right to sell housing sites of migrants to be supplied from the operator of the development project of the next D District in this Chapter (hereinafter “instant sales right”) at KRW 50 million.

B. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant sales right at KRW 135 million as a broker of C, a licensed real estate agent, and subsequently sold the instant sales right again on or around April 2016.

C. Meanwhile, on May 24, 2016, E was selected as a person eligible for supply of the said development project sites, and entered into a sales contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which is the implementer, to be supplied with a lot number of 1 large 245 square meters for migrants of the said development project.

The Defendant purchased the instant parcelling-out right through the real estate brokerage office, and demanded E to implement the procedure for changing the name of the buyer, and the Defendant rejected it, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract of the instant parcelling-out right concluded with H on December 16, 2016.

[Post-transfer, the Daegu District Court 2017Gahap201280 (principal lawsuit), 203712 (Counterclaim) (hereinafter “related lawsuit”). The Defendant asserted the validity of the sale and purchase contract of this case, and filed a counterclaim seeking performance of the procedure for the change of the name of the buyer (principal lawsuit) or compensation equivalent to the purchase and sale price.

The above court, on November 2, 2017, concluded a contract for the sale of the instant sale right without the consent of the project implementer in violation of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, which is a mandatory law, prior to entering into a contract for sale of the housing site for migrants, on the ground that it is null and void.