1. Defendant C’s KRW 150,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 8, 2011 to November 20, 201, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

Defendant B is the representative in the name of Defendant D, and Defendant C is the actual operator of Defendant D.

On June 13, 2011, Defendant C issued a contract for the construction work of the new E-ground shopping district in Gyeyang-si (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) to Yangsan-si Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. by setting the price of 4,880,000,000, and the construction period from August 11, 2011 to May 10, 2012.

On September 3, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the price of KRW 542,00,000 for No. 101 among the instant commercial buildings (the contract price of KRW 250,000,000, the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Although the seller in the instant sales contract is indicated as D representative B, there was only Defendant C and its wife F, etc. at the place where the instant sales contract was concluded, Defendant B did not have been employed.

On September 7, 2011, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 150,000,000 as part of the down payment of the instant sales contract to the account under the name of Defendant B.

In October 201, the contractor of the new commercial building of this case, the contractor of the new commercial building of this case discontinued the construction project on the ground that no progress payment is paid.

On September 6, 2012, there was an application for voluntary auction on the site of the commercial building in this case, and on January 24, 2013, the ownership was transferred to a third party.

【The ground for recognition” did not exist, the statements in Gap's 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole argument as to the plaintiff's tort, despite the absence of the ability or intent to sell the commercial building 101, the defendants were responsible for compensating for damages of KRW 150,000,000 caused by the above deception.

The sales contract of this case for return of unjust enrichment is impossible to perform and thus cancelled by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. The defendants are obligated to return 150,000,000 won as unjust enrichment.

First, part of the claim against Defendant C, No. 2. A

As to the assertion of the claim, Defendant C-C-C-C-S only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.