A. On November 11, 2008, C entered into an exchange contract with the Defendant with the content of exchanging the area of 601 square meters of land D in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the ownership of which is C (hereinafter “D”) and the area of 594 square meters of land E in Ulsan-gun, the Defendant-owned (hereinafter “E”).

(hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). (b)

At the time of the instant exchange contract, E had already been set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 900 million in the name of the debtor F, the mortgagee F, and the Seocho Agricultural Cooperative under the name of the Seocho Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

C. Under the instant exchange contract, the ownership of D was transferred to the Defendant on December 12, 2008, and the ownership was re-transfered to G on November 1, 2010.

E transferred ownership to C on December 12, 2008, and C died on March 18, 2009 and transferred ownership on March 24, 201 to the Plaintiff due to inheritance due to a consultation division.

On January 2, 2012, the decision to commence voluntary auction (H of the Ulsan District Court Act) regarding E inherited by the Plaintiff based on the instant right to collateral security was made on January 2, 2012, and was sold to I on November 30, 2012.

E. It is evident that the Plaintiff’s notification to the Defendant of the intent to rescind the instant exchange contract by serving the duplicate of the complaint of this case is a record.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Where the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate which is the object of an exchange contract has been registered, the party liable for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate shall complete the registration of ownership transfer by cancelling the registration of establishment of the

In the case of this case, the Plaintiff lost its ownership in the auction procedure conducted on the instant collateral security, which was established on the Defendant-owned property E at the time of the instant exchange contract, and the fact that the Plaintiff cancelled the instant exchange contract as seen above.