1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

A. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

B. The defendant is the plaintiff 581,117.

Facts of recognition

This Court's reasoning is the same as that stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff's main claim is that the defendant filed a special application for the sale of the apartment in the sale procedure of the apartment of this case, but it is difficult to raise funds, but entered into a sales contract with the plaintiff.

The above sales contract was reversed on June 2013, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to purchase the apartment of this case on or around the end of July 2013, and the plaintiff paid the balance of the sales price for the apartment of this case and moved into the apartment of this case.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to execute the sales contract for the instant apartment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to complete the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership for the instant apartment on October 15, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the preliminary claim made an expenditure of KRW 581,17,618 in total, for the sale price of the apartment in this case, the cost of expanding the balcony, and the cost of operation and registration of the apartment in this case. The defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the unjust profit equivalent to the above

There was no sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract on the instant apartment in accordance with the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

Therefore, the Defendant merely has the duty to return unjust benefits to the Plaintiff (the Defendant’s preparatory statement prepared on November 25, 2020 stated that the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim falls short of the Plaintiff’s response, but it was not allowed under conditional refusal, and thus, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim cannot be deemed to have been accepted by the Defendant.). However, the instant claim cannot be deemed to have been accepted by the Defendant.