A. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant E on the exchange of each real estate owned by the Plaintiffs (each real estate, etc. listed in attached Tables 3 and 4) and each of the real estate owned by Defendant E (five lots, including 926 square meters, etc., Sinnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun) (hereinafter “instant first exchange contract”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendant C on the exchange of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 owned by the Plaintiffs, each of the above real estate owned by the Defendant E, and the Npenta (which consists of ten lots of land, including 389 square meters, and several above ground buildings) owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement,” and “each of the instant exchange agreements” when complying with the said exchange agreement.

C. Accordingly, (1) On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff B completed provisional registration with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, and (2) on March 22, 2013, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, and thereafter, Defendant E and F completed the registration of ownership transfer in sequence.

(3) Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed to Defendant G.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The contract of each exchange of this case constitutes an unfair legal act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus null and void.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek the implementation of each cancellation registration procedure against the Defendants for their restoration to their original state.

B. Preliminary Plaintiffs rescinded each exchange contract of this case on the grounds of Defendant C’s nonperformance of obligation and fraud.

However, the plaintiffs acquired the rights prior to the declaration of the above cancellation.