1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant C's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the plaintiff's assertion is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence submitted by the court of the first instance. The court's explanation concerning this case is that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against defendant C in the court of the first instance is added to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim at the court of the first instance under the fourth 9th decision of the court of the first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Judgment on Preliminary Claim】 The Plaintiff, on February 28, 2013, amended the Ordinance on the Urban Planning of Ansan-si, which was prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the ownership transfer of the instant land was impossible from the time of the conclusion of the sales contract. As such, the instant sales contract is null and void due to its original impossibility, and the Defendant C shall return the purchase price of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The issue of whether a contract is an original impossible condition is not limited to physical impossibility, but should be determined according to the concept of social norms or the transaction concept of society. However, the mere fact that the content of a contract was in violation of the prohibition stipulated by law and was illegal does not necessarily mean that the contract was in an original impossible condition from the time of the contract in light of social norms or the transaction concept of society.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41294 Decided October 14, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with Defendant C with a health care unit, and the Plaintiff’s price of the instant land at KRW 40 million on July 26, 2013, as seen earlier. According to the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire purport of the pleadings, the provision relating to the size of land division restriction among the Ordinance on the Urban Planning of Ansan-si, 2013 was amended on February 28, 2013. According to the foregoing revised provision (Article 22(1)1 of the Ordinance on the Urban Planning of Ansan-si, the land category is forest and field.