1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

Around October 2009, G and the Defendant, who represented the Plaintiffs’ father, agreed to exchange the land of 337.2 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the building owned by the Plaintiffs”) and the five-story above the ground (hereinafter “the instant exchange contract”) owned by the Plaintiffs, and the land of 38,876 square meters in Chuncheon-si, Chuncheon-si (hereinafter “the building owned by the Plaintiffs”), E forest land 4,066 square meters in size, 13,190 square meters in F forest, H forest land 31,636 square meters in size, and 53,058 square meters in I forest land (hereinafter “the instant exchange contract”).

B. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 90,00,000,00 and damages for delay thereof (the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap75650 (the principal lawsuit)). Accordingly, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for the return of unjust enrichment due to the invalidation or cancellation of the exchange contract of this case, the conjunctive claim for damages due to the non-performance of obligation and the warranty liability, and the counterclaim for the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff B (the Seoul Central District Court 2010Da75667 (Counterclaim)).

On April 15, 2011, the court of first instance accepted each of the plaintiffs' main claim and the defendant's main claim for the counterclaim, and rendered a judgment ordering the plaintiffs to pay 25,000,000 won jointly and severally against the plaintiffs and damages for delay.

C. On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant appealed to the part of the lower judgment against each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, respectively. However, the lower court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that all of the appeals by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant dismissed on March 29, 2012.

On July 12, 2012, the defendant appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36289, 2012Da36296 (Counterclaim), but the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on the part of the main lawsuit and dismissed the appeal on the counterclaim.