1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Defendant Union is a housing association established to build apartment houses of a regional housing association (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) in the C Group at the same time and sell them to its members. On February 14, 2015, the Defendant Union filed an application for the authorization to establish a housing association at the same time, and obtained the authorization on April 28, 2015.

On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to enter into an association with the purport that one household with an exclusive area of 74 square meters (D) is to purchase an apartment unit to be newly constructed with the Defendant’s association, and entered into an agreement to enter into an association with the purport that one household with an exclusive area of 59 square meters (E) is to purchase an apartment unit with an exclusive area of 59 square meters on November 19, 2014, and one household with an exclusive area of 59 square meters (F) on December 30, 2014, respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the instant agreements”). On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred to G the status of union members with respect to subparagraph (D), the status of union members with respect to subparagraph (E), and the status of union members with respect to subparagraph (F) to I.

The share of KRW 35,00,000 for each of the contracts of this case (i.e., KRW 25,000,000 for the consulting service cost of KRW 10,000,000 for each of the contracts of this case) and total of KRW 105,000 for each of the contracts of this case.

The Plaintiff owned a house of 85 square meters or more at the time of entering into each of the instant contracts.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 (including additional numbers), and the entire pleadings was not a member of the defendant union since the conclusion of each contract of this case, and the defendant union was also aware of this fact. Since each contract of this case is an original impossibility, it is null and void as the contract of this case is also null and void, and the contract of transfer of the status of union members with I, H, and G is null and void, the defendant union should refund to the Plaintiff the share paid to the union members so far as unjust enrichment.

Defendant Mutual Aid Association concluded each of the instant contracts in the name of the Plaintiff and subsequently changed to the name of the family.