1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 152,781,86.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the grounds that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as follows

(However, the part on the co-defendant C of the first instance court, which was separated and confirmed, is excluded). 2. Parts dried or added

A. Article 2-b (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 9-2(2)) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 2-2(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 2-2(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance) is as follows, and Article 19 of the judgment of the court

“B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the instant dispute to the Plaintiff as a result of the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and return the amount of profit from the possession and use of the said real estate until the delivery is completed. The Plaintiff received the certification of the content of November 23, 2018, which the Plaintiff retired from the instant dispute from the Defendant on November 24, 2018, and thus, the Defendant ought to return the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff until November 24, 2018.

2. As seen earlier, the instant sales contract was rescinded on June 19, 2015. In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 23 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant operated, occupied and used, and used, the real estate brokerage business in the dispute portion among the No. 6 of the Commercial Building F from March 19, 2013 to September 18, 2018 after the delivery of each of the instant commercial buildings after the instant sales contract. However, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant, even thereafter, has gained substantial profits by using, gaining profits from, and using, the dispute portion among the No. 6 of the Commercial Building F, and the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of profit from the possession and use of the said real estate until the delivery to the Plaintiff is completed.

Furthermore, lives, kives.