beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff T, AB, and AD shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff T, AB, and AD
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff T, AB, and AD donated 50% of the shares of the selling right holder in the sale contract to each spouse (hereinafter "the other party"), but it again acquired 50% of the unjust enrichment that occurred in connection with the sale contract in this case from the other party and notified the defendant thereof. The claim for return of unjust enrichment that the plaintiff T, AB, and AD acquired from the other party is arising from the payment of the sale price in this case under each of the sale contract in this case which the defendant concluded as commercial activity, and it can be deemed that the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the plaintiff T, AB, and D acquired from the other party is basically based on the sale contract in this case which constitutes commercial activity. The defendant concluded a large number of sale contracts with the party subject to relocation measures at the general sale price and revised by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 207.
A. The former Public Works Act (hereinafter “former Public Works Act”)
In addition to the fact that the sales contract becomes invalid within the extent that exceeds the legitimate sales price under Article 78(4), part of the sales price becomes subject to judgment as unjust enrichment, and that there is a aspect similar to the general commercial transaction in that it is necessary to promptly resolve the transactional relationship, it is reasonable to deem that the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the above plaintiffs acquired from each other was extinguished by five years since Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applied. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the above plaintiffs acquired from the other party has expired by five years.