1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to purchase KRW 79.8 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the share of KRW 591.67 percent (hereinafter “instant land”) out of KRW 266 square meters (hereinafter “instant contract”). On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid acquisition tax of KRW 9,179,560 to the head of Eunpyeong-gu.

However, the instant sales contract was revoked by agreement around October 2013, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the sales price to B.

Therefore, the act of reporting the acquisition of the instant land, which the Plaintiff did not pay any balance under the instant sales contract, is limited to a person who did not meet the actual requirements for the acquisition of ownership. As such, since such defect is significant and obvious, the Defendant is obligated to return the acquisition tax paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff failed to pay the purchase price, including the balance under the instant contract, to B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff paid the down payment and the remainder in full according to the instant contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

The instant sales contract was concluded on May 22, 2013, and the total purchase price was 79.8 million won. The Plaintiff and B agreed to pay the purchase price on the day of concluding the contract as a special agreement on the method of payment of the purchase price.

In other words, the down payment is first made as part of the purchase price.