1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,430,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2015 to June 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased 8,6430,00,000 won including premium from the Defendant, and paid the said amount to the Defendant in full, on February 4, 2015, D apartment 104 Dong 501 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment,” and the right to sell the apartment, for which the sales contract was concluded on February 4, 2015, in the name of D apartment 104 Dong 501 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment,” and the right

The amount actually reverted to the defendant is KRW 83,430,00,000, and the remaining KRW 3 million was paid to E-real estate as a transaction fee.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, inasmuch as the instant apartment was subject to the sales price ceiling system for one year, was an apartment where the resale right was restricted for one year. As such, the procedure for changing the ownership of the sales price was to proceed after February 4, 2016 when the period of restriction on resale expires, but the fact that the instant apartment sales price supply contract was concluded by illegal acquisition of the subscription savings account in the name of C was discovered to the relevant authorities on January 2016, the apartment sales price supply contract of this case was revoked.

C. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff returned the remainder of KRW 13 million from the Defendant to E-real estate.

was returned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff alleged in the parties (1) that the defendant acquired the instant apartment subscription savings in the name of C and acquired the instant apartment subscription rights by unlawful means, but, as the plaintiff resells the right to sell the apartment unit normally sold by C, it allowed the plaintiff to purchase the right to sell the apartment unit. Since the cancellation of the apartment sale supply contract in the case of this case, it is impossible for the plaintiff to carry out the procedure for change of the name of the right to sell the apartment unit, it is primarily liable for tort caused by fraud, and it is based on the preliminary liability for default due to nonperformance.