A. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into an exchange agreement with Defendant C on the exchange of the Plaintiff’s title 303 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) under the name of the Defendant C, which was entrusted by the Plaintiff’s Gyeong-gu U.S., U.S., G, and the gas station located on each land and its ground, and Defendant C, under the name of Defendant C, (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).

B. Under the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant commercial buildings on August 7, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon under the name of J (hereinafter “instant chonsegwon”) was completed on the instant commercial building, which caused KRW 120 million. However, around May 31, 2013, H filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the said chonsegwon registration against J (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2013Gadan19443) but on February 4, 2014, upon receiving a ruling of dismissal from the said court on February 4, 2014, the said court was sentenced to a ruling of dismissal, and thereafter, the dismissal of appeal against H’s appeal was finalized (Supreme Court Decision 2014Na4026), and the dismissal of appeal against H’s appeal was finalized (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da45055).

On March 24, 2016, when the J applied for a voluntary auction on the instant commercial building based on the above right to lease on a deposit basis, the Plaintiffs were to voluntarily commence the auction on March 24, 2016, and the Plaintiffs were to receive the said right to lease on a deposit basis from J and K on April 26, 2016, and to pay the Plaintiffs KRW 125 million, including the deposit money of KRW 120 million and the expenses related to the auction procedure, and the K agreed to withdraw the auction, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid the said amount on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including additional number), witness L's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the evidence prior to the determination of the grounds for the claim, Defendant D and E mediated the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, and the said Defendants were at the time of concluding the contract.