1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Plaintiff B-2, 902, 248,000,000, 1600, 0002 Plaintiff B-2, 2, 1102, 248,000, 160,000, 2, Plaintiff B-2, 3, 1201, 204, 160,000,000 for Plaintiff B-2, 1201 for Plaintiff B-1, 376,000,000 for Plaintiff A-1, 1106, 250,000,000 for Plaintiff A-1, 1106, 376,000, 376,000, 250,000 for Plaintiff A-1, 1206, 376,0000, 250,000 for Plaintiff A-6, 000,000 for Plaintiff A-6, 30008,006

A. As between Plaintiff B and D (E) on November 27, 2014, each of the real estate in the column “subject to exchange” as listed below among the instant I apartment located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the Plaintiffs owned by the Plaintiffs, refers to “each of the instant apartment units” and “a combination is specified as the instant apartment unitsO,” and “a combination is specified as the instant apartment units.”

J, K, L ground buildings and land below the marian real estate in e.g.

'The exchange contract of this case' (hereinafter referred to as 'the exchange contract of this case') to exchange

B) The instant apartment No. 406 was sold to N on December 1, 2014, and the ownership transfer registration under N was completed on December 5, 2014. On December 6, 2014, the ownership transfer registration under N was sold in KRW 357,50,000 and the ownership transfer registration under the name of P was completed on January 29, 2015. (c) The instant apartment No. 902 was sold to P on February 4, 2015 and the ownership transfer registration under the name was completed on March 12, 2015. The instant apartment No. 902 was based on the grounds for recognition. 【No dispute exists, including the number of each item, the number of items indicated in subparagraphs A through 3, and No. 5 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Compensation for damages following the cancellation of the instant exchange contract (the chief asserted Plaintiffs entered into the instant exchange contract with D who represented the Defendant, the owner of Muri Real Estate.

As a result of the execution of the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiffs paid to the Defendant KRW 50,000 out of KRW 180,000, and KRW 902,00,000 that the Defendant received as the repayment of the loan, and ② the Defendant’s apartment Nos. 902.