1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance ("1. acknowledged facts"). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The grounds for this part of the allegations by the parties are stated in the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance ("2.a. the parties' assertion") except for the cases of cutting down or adding as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added on the fourth day below the judgment of the first instance:

“A) Although the market price of the instant land was 259,505,300 won at the time of the conclusion of the instant exchange contract at the time of the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the Defendant assessed the price of the instant land at KRW 1.2 billion and entered into the instant exchange contract by assessing the price of the instant land at KRW 1.2 billion. Since the instant exchange contract constitutes an unfair juristic act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus null and void, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70 million and the damages for delay that was paid pursuant to the instant exchange contract. On the fourth day of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the claim for cancellation of the instant exchange contract at KRW 5 billion and the claim for cancellation of the instant exchange contract at KRW 20,500,000, respectively.

3. Determination

A. As to the allegation that the exchange contract of this case is null and void, the unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act objectively causes significant imbalance between payment and consideration, and it is established when the transaction that lost balance as such objectively takes place using the flag, rash or experience of the victimized party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15784, Jul. 7, 2000). However, in light of the background and content of the conclusion of the exchange contract of this case, and the appraisal price of the land of this case and the carpete lease.