1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 21, 2016 to October 31, 2017.

Basic Facts

On August 2, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 6,557/11,504 shares among them, and on the share of 4,947/11,504 shares among them, E, on June 25, 2010, with respect to the share of 6,557/11,504 square meters of D forest land, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant land before subdivision”).

On May 6, 2015, the instant land prior to subdivision was divided into 6,557 square meters of forest land and 4947 square meters of forest land in racing-si on May 6, 2015.

On December 23, 2015, the Defendant drafted a written confirmation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant confirmation”) to the Plaintiff, stating that “Around 2,000 square meters in Gyeongju-si proves that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff” (one square meter is about 3.3 square meters).

The Defendant provided G with D land and F land divided into joint collateral on January 11, 2016, and the registration of the establishment of the mortgage over D land and F land was completed on January 11, 2016, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000, the debtor, the defendant, and the mortgagee G.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case prior to the division shall be ordered to purchase the land of this case to the plaintiff at KRW 100,000 per deliberation.

In response, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 1,000,000, but the actual purchase price of the instant land from the original owner C was limited to KRW 40,000 per square.

The defendant received the purchase price from the plaintiff and then received the purchase price from the plaintiff, and then established the right to collateral security at will against the plaintiff. The plaintiff voluntarily revoked the contract with the defendant with respect to the land of this case prior to the division, on the ground that the contract with the defendant was made by deception.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Judgment

The above facts of recognition are as follows. A through A.