1. The primary plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay 40,000,000 won to the plaintiff B in the preliminary case.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiff A was introduced by the defendant through the plaintiff B, who is the father, and the defendant was the non-permission building of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D without permission (hereinafter "the non-permission building of this case") where redevelopment was conducted by the defendant

(2) The sales contract of this case is the sales contract of this case where the Plaintiff B, who represented for the said Plaintiff, would purchase the instant unauthorized building at KRW 40,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant for the purchase of KRW 40,000 (hereinafter “the purchase contract of this case”).

(2) If the Plaintiff A is not a party to the above sales contract, the Plaintiff B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with such content.

3) However, since the instant unauthorized building was a building that was originally the same as the instant building, it was merely a double light on the building ledger, and there was no actual building at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the instant sales contract is null and void in its original impossibility. Accordingly, the Defendant is primarily obligated to return the sales price already paid to the Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is obligated to return the sales price already paid to the Plaintiff B in preliminary order.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) merely entered into a sales contract with Plaintiff B, and did not enter into the sales contract with Plaintiff A. 2) The Plaintiff Company’s redevelopment and reconstruction employee, despite having been well aware of the fact that the instant building does not have existed as a real asset, sold speculative transactions on the right to move into an apartment (the continuous name “webing area”). As long as the Defendant changed the name of the owner of the instant unauthorized building at Plaintiff B’s request, as long as it changed the name of the owner of the instant unauthorized building in the future of Plaintiff A, it cannot be deemed that the instant sales contract was an original impossibility.

In addition, brut area transactions.