1. The defendant's KRW 58,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from May 3, 2004 to September 27, 2016 to the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendant entered into a contract on January 31, 1994 that purchased KONEX 23.14 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”) from Siel department stores (the trade name before the change: Hedong department stores Co., Ltd.) in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul and 1 parcel D No. 101 among the 101 multi-story No. 101, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul.

On December 13, 1995, the Defendant concluded a contract to sell the instant building to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff paid 58,00,000 won to the Defendant by January 31, 1996.

On May 3, 2001, it was impossible for the defendant to receive the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case from the above company due to the declaration of bankruptcy of Siel department department corporation.

The plaintiff received dividends of KRW 8,679,280 on behalf of the defendant who is a bankruptcy creditor around March 2006 in the above bankruptcy procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-7 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) If the performance of the obligation of one of the parties to the bilateral contract becomes impossible due to any cause for which neither of the parties is responsible, the obligor may not demand performance of the other party.

(Article 537 of the Civil Act). If the obligor has already received any benefit in return, it shall be returned to the other party as unjust enrichment.

(Article 741 of the Civil Act). The defendant, upon the declaration of bankruptcy of Si EL department store, was unable to obtain the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case from the above company, so the obligation to register ownership transfer to the plaintiff was impossible

Since the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership was impossible due to a cause not attributable to both the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant cannot seek payment of the purchase price from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s payment already received from the Plaintiff should be returned as unjust enrichment.

On May 3, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price already paid on May 3, 2001.

(2) The scope of unjust enrichment return is malicious.