1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages against the Defendants as a principal lawsuit due to the Defendants’ failure to execute the exchange contract. The Defendants filed a claim against the Plaintiffs for the registration of ownership transfer, the request for extradition and the request for custody money pursuant to the exchange contract with the Plaintiffs as a counterclaim. The court of first instance accepted the Defendants’ claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the request for custody money among the counterclaim, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim for the principal lawsuit and the request for extradition among the Defendants’ counterclaim

As to this, only the plaintiffs appealed on the part of the defendants' counterclaims, the subject matter of this court's judgment is limited to the part of the defendants' counterclaims.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, one-half of whom are married, are co-owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, who completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one-half share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate No. 1”) on January 6, 2010.

The Defendants are co-owners of the second real estate of this case who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/2 share of the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 of April 18, 2008 (hereinafter “the second real estate”).

Fidelity G is a dependent of the plaintiffs, and F is a deceptive person of the plaintiffs, and G and F are co-owners of the third real estate of this case who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/2 share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 and 5 of December 18, 2009 (hereinafter "third real estate of this case").

B. (1) On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants exchanged the instant real estate jointly owned by the Plaintiffs and the instant real estate No. 2 jointly owned by the Defendants. However, on June 30, 2013, the Defendants entered into an exchange agreement with the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 215,00,000 to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).

The Defendants’ obligations assumed.