1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 30,000.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, except for the addition of “the instant forest” after the “forest 595 square meters” in the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance” (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and “the instant sales contract” after the “sales contract of the same kind” (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”)” as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract by selling the instant forest land on behalf of the Defendant and selling it on behalf of the Defendant, and paid KRW 30 million, which is part of the down payment of the instant sales contract, to the Defendant on condition that the effect of the instant sales contract is maintained.

Therefore, as long as the contract of this case was terminated and becomes null and void, the defendant is obligated to return 30 million won to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant is part of the money that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant as the down payment for the instant sales contract, and thus, insofar as the Plaintiff did not again pay KRW 30 million to the Pungsung Housing, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and the Defendant did not agree to return the said money where the instant sales contract is terminated between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant does not have the duty to return KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First, as to the existence of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the forest of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract including the shares owned by the Defendant among the forest of this case is as seen earlier, and the Defendant did not raise any objection and received part of the down payment pursuant to the said sales contract.