1. The plaintiff's main claim and the first and second conjunctive claims are all changed in exchange at the trial.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is determined on the basis of only the written application for change of the cause of claim, as the Plaintiff changed the application for change of the cause of claim from the trial court to the application for change of the cause of claim on May 19, 2017 in exchange for all claims in the first instance trial.

The primary claim Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, who is not F, with respect to forest E- 1,322 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeyang-do, and the Defendant did not implement the promise despite the promise to “I would sell the instant land as KRW 200 million,” and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancelled the above sales contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s default, and sought the return of KRW 100 million paid as the sales price to its original state.

B. Although the seller of the instant land was F, it was impossible to sell and purchase the instant land in light of the right to collateral security or F’s loan, etc. established on the instant land.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who works at the licensed real estate agent’s office, breached the duty of care to introduce movable property that may be sold to the Plaintiff as a customer, and accordingly, is liable to compensate for damages of KRW 100 million paid by the Plaintiff.

C. Although the second preliminary claim F requested C and the Defendant to sell the instant land at KRW 300,000 to KRW 350,000 per square day, the Defendant sold the instant land at KRW 50,000 per square day.

Thus, the defendant gains a profit without any legal ground as to the total of KRW 30 million per ordinary party beyond the delegation scope (i.e., KRW 150,000 x 200 x) and thereby causes loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 30,000 as a return of unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. The premise of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the instant land by the Defendant.