1. The part concerning the claim for agreed amount in the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be dismissed.

2.In the face of a change in exchange for the future.

1. Whether an appeal against the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount is lawful, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the agreed amount under the condition of suspending the sale, expropriation, and disposal of the instant land, and the first instance court rendered a full judgment as to this part, and subsequently, subsequently the Plaintiff filed an appeal as to the part of the agreed amount claim on the ground that the said suspension condition was fulfilled due to a consultation on the land acquired by the Korea Water Resources Corporation

On the other hand, the first instance court rendered a unanimous judgment on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount under the condition precedent, and the fulfillment of the above condition of suspension is merely the requirement for granting the execution clause according to the above quoted judgment, and thus, the appeal on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount is unlawful as there is no interest in

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

(a) The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 21 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband and the Defendant’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband and the Defendant’s husband’s husband. 2) on the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’

3) On September 16, 2014, the Korea Water Resources Corporation completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration on September 5, 2014 with respect to the instant land on the ground of a consultation on a site for public use on September 5, 2014. The compensation for the instant land is KRW 683,272,00. Of them, KRW 320,839,745 was paid to the Defendant on September 22, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 362,432,255 was not paid due to the provisional seizure against the Plaintiff’s claim (the Busan District Court 2014Kahap10327).

B. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from G, the former owner, and entrusted his title to the defendant around September 1987. Around August 1988, the defendant paid the purchase price for 1/2 shares to the plaintiff.