1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss each of the “J” of the 7th and 2th of the judgment of the court of first instance as “D,” and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations added in the trial of the Plaintiff at the trial. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. 1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the starting point of the extinctive prescription period, D’s endeavor to implement the first sale contract, such as filing an application for permission on land transaction to the competent agency in order to obtain permission on land transaction pursuant to the first sale contract, and thus, the first sale contract is aimed at avoiding the permission on land transaction, and cannot be deemed null and void as it is final and conclusive from

However, since a sale contract without permission for land transaction becomes null and void in a final and conclusive manner at the time of non-permission due to the passive invalidation of a contract, the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to D’s purchase price under the invalidation of a contract for the first sale shall be calculated from March 8, 2007, on which an application for land transaction permission

B) A non-legal expert could not have known that D’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment was finally null and void since the date of the conclusion of the first sale contract. As such, D’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment runs from the time when the relevant judgment was rendered that D’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment null and void, or at least D’s claim for permission for land transaction was rejected, or according to the record of evidence No. 30, and the fact inquiry reply to this court’s South Yangyang-ju market on February 28, 2007, D and C filed an application for land transaction with D in relation to a sale contract that sells D’s land to KRW 373,00,000,000 as stated in the separate sheet, but it is recognized that D and C filed an application for permission for acquisition of unjust enrichment on March 8, 2007.

However, each entry of Gap 1, 2, 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, and 1 evidence, respectively;