1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on April 2, 2009 (hereinafter “sales contract on April 2, 2009”) with the housing site development project district for KRW 70,000,000, and paid KRW 70,000 to the Defendant on the date of the said contract. The Plaintiff’s son, on April 30, 2009, purchased the purchase right of KRW 170,00,000 for the purchase of the housing site and daily countermeasure site (E; hereinafter “E resident housing site and daily countermeasure site purchase right”) for the purchase of KRW 30,00,00 for the purchase price (hereinafter “sales contract on April 30, 2009”).

A) A contract was concluded on April 2, 2009, which is separate from the sales contract as of April 2, 2009. (2) According to the F Association’s articles of incorporation at the time of the sales contract as of April 2, 2009 (hereinafter “instant union”). A change in the shares of individual union members was impossible. Even if it was based on the public notice of supply of land for countermeasures against daily life on April 23, 2009, the change in the name (shares) of individual union members was not allowed. Therefore, the above sales contract becomes null and void due to original impossibility, and the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

3) The Defendant did not secure the general meeting minutes with the purport that all partners of the instant case consented to the change of the name. The Defendant did not submit to the Gyeonggi-do Foundation the documents necessary for the change of the shares of the instant association members or the name of the right to purchase, and did not take any measures to ensure that the special period of sale for the instant association members expired and the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the right to purchase was impossible. Thus, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract on April 2, 2009 with the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, and the Defendant has the obligation to return the purchase price of KRW 70,00,000 to the Plaintiff. 4) Even if the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the right to purchase was not impossible, the Defendant did not delay the above obligation until now and the Plaintiff had already completed the sale by the union members.