beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. 35,00,000 won to Plaintiff A and 15% per annum from March 9, 2019 to May 31, 2019, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are those who wish to join the regional housing association (hereinafter “instant association”).
B. On August 27, 2017, Plaintiff B visited the Housing Promotion Center of the Defendant and explained that there is no problem in joining the instant association as a member of the instant association, and transferred KRW 5,000,000 as a provisional contract deposit amount, and KRW 40,054,40 as of August 31, 2017, to each of the Defendant’s corporate bank accounts under the name of each of the Defendant (i.e., KRW 25,00 premium of KRW 25,000 as premium of KRW 40,054,40 as of August 31, 2017 (i.e., contract deposit amount of KRW 20,054,400 as premium of KRW 25,000,000 as premium of KRW 25,00,000) to each of the Defendant’s corporate bank accounts.
C. On September 2, 2017, Plaintiff A, like Plaintiff B, drafted a contract for the supply of a regional housing association (hereinafter “instant secondary contract”) on September 2, 2017, and transferred KRW 6,000,000 as a provisional contract deposit on the same day, and KRW 62,457,500 on September 10, 2017 (i.e., down payment KRW 27,457,500,000) (i.e., KRW 35,000,00) to each corporate bank account under the name of the Defendant.
The amount equivalent to the down payment of each of the above payments paid by the plaintiffs was paid to the association of this case, but the amount equivalent to the premium was reverted to the defendant, and the defendant paid fees, etc. for the acquisition of the right to sell to the employees of the sales agency.
E. However, in the case of the plaintiffs, they did not join the association of this case on the grounds that the conditions of membership of the association of this case are not met, i.e., the period of residence of the head of the household (at least six months prior to the application for authorization to establish the association). Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted against the Seoul Central District Court that each of the contracts of this case was revoked due to mistake, and filed a lawsuit to return unjust enrichment. The above court