1. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1 to the plaintiff in Busan District Court and Busan District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 20, 2013, the Defendant and the Defendant’s spouse C (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) entered into a contract with D to exchange each of the real estate owned by the Defendant, etc. (each of the real estate indicated in the attached Forms 3 and 4) and each of the real estate owned D (five lots, including the real estate in the attached Tables 3 and 4) (five lots, including the real estate, etc. owned by the Defendant, etc.) (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

B. On the same day, the Defendant et al. entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the exchange of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 attached to the Defendant et al., each of the above real estate owned by the Defendant et al., and Fpention (which consists of ten lots of land, including 389 square meters in Tong-si, G-si, and several above ground buildings) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant secondary exchange agreement,” and “each of the instant exchange agreements” when complying with the said exchange agreement.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) against the Plaintiff on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) on February 22, 2013 as the receipt No. 10480 on March 7, 2013, the Busan District Court rendered the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 8 evidence, Eul 6 evidence (including number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The facts of the above recognition and no dispute over the cause of the claim, the statements in Gap 1, 3, 4, 8, Eul 1, 2, and 6, and the following circumstances, which can be known by the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the unilateral promise, unless there are special circumstances, is presumed to be one-way promise, and there is no ground to view otherwise in this case. One-way promise can establish a sales contract, which is the principal contract, by unilateral declaration of intention (Article 564(1) of the Civil Act), and ② The plaintiff under the second exchange contract of this case.