1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an organization established pursuant to Article 11 of the Housing Act, Articles 20 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act for the purpose of promoting the business of constructing new apartments in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to enter into an association (hereinafter “instant agreement to enter into the association”) with a view to purchasing a unit of 59 square meters for an exclusive area among apartment units newly constructed pursuant to the instant project, and paid KRW 30 million in total as a down payment, etc. to D Co., Ltd., a financial manager of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the contract to join the association of this case was cancelled, cancelled, or invalidated for the following reasons, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount of KRW 30 million paid to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment or restitution to its original state.

1) The Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant association agreement, notified the Plaintiff of any material fact in the transaction as follows. In other words, the Defendant, at the time of entering into the association, notified the Plaintiff that the consent rate for the use of the project site was more than 60%, but the actual amount was less than 39.04%, and (2) notified that the “B station area redevelopment project was carried out prior to the instant project,” but there was only the fact that the “B station area redevelopment project was carried out” rather than the previous redevelopment project, and (3) notified that there was a “cases of successful conversion into the redevelopment area-regional housing association,” but the said conversion was made only by the unilateral declaration of intention of the parties concerned and there was no serious difference in the case of success (EN association currently does not have any means other than the present declaration

Therefore, the contract of joining the association of this case constitutes the conclusion of a contract by deception, and is revoked.