1. Defendant B is indicated in the attached Form on August 1, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B on the ground of revocation of the exchange contract.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

(a) Description of claims: To describe the reasons for the application and the reasons for the modification of the purport of the claim;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Union

A. The gist of the party’s assertion argues that, inasmuch as an exchange contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant exchange contract”) with the Plaintiff and the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the real estate”) was revoked, the Defendant Union is obligated to express its consent to the registration of cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security listed in B(b) of the disposition of the instant change.”

In this regard, the defendant union is one of the third parties acting in good faith, and the defendant union is protected by Article 110(3) or Article 548 of the Civil Code, and thus, it does not have the obligation to

B. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the cancellation of the instant exchange contract is retroactive, and thus, the Defendant Union is obligated to consent. However, the effect of the cancellation is limited to a third party acting in good faith pursuant to Article 110(3) of the Civil Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant Union, who is a third party, is malicious, and thus, the Plaintiff’s declaration of cancellation cannot be set up against the Defendant Union pursuant to

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff also asserts to the effect that the defendant union is obligated to give consent to the defendant union since the consent to assume debt as a third party is naturally retroactively cancelled if the contract of exchange in this case is cancelled.

In accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant exchange contract was revoked.

Even if the defendant union's consent on the assumption of the obligation is naturally retroactive, and cannot be seen as null and void or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s association requested the cancellation registration of the Plaintiff’s change of this case.