beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,060,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from May 10, 2019 to October 16, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 8, 2006, the Plaintiff, while promoting an urban development project in Pyeongtaek-si C District, purchased KRW 540,60,000 from the Defendant for KRW 540,60,00 the land of Pyeongtaek-si D 533 square meters and E 519 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 54,60,000 for the remainder of KRW 486,540,000 after concluding a sales contract for the entire land within the project site.
(2) On April 10, 2006, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 54,060,000 on April 10, 2006.
B. On March 9, 2007, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the instant sales contract would be reversed according to the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, based on the fact that the balance would not be paid until February 28, 2007.
C. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant sales contract was terminated, and accordingly, sent a certificate of the content that the Defendant would return the down payment paid by the Defendant, without cooperatinging with the Defendant in establishing an association and applying for authorization to proceed with the urban development project in Pyeongtaek-si C District, which is promoted by the Plaintiff.
The instant land was designated as a land transaction permission area at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and was rescinded on February 6, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1-5, 7, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion;
A. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s instant sales contract was finally and conclusively invalidated by clearly expressing the Plaintiff’s intent to refuse to perform his/her duty of cooperation based on the instant sales contract by verifying the content thereof, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment received pursuant to the instant sales contract, which is null and void, as unjust enrichment.
B. The defendant neglected his duty to pay the balance, as the plaintiff neglected his duty to pay the balance.