1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with the Defendant to exchange the 165 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Si, Si, Gu, Si, Si (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 501 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of the 5th floor of D ground buildings owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

B. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the instant land was subject to the establishment of a collateral security right of KRW 25 million with the amount of the secured debt, and the instant building was established with the amount of KRW 65 million with the secured debt. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant assumed the secured debt with respect to each real estate acquired according to the instant exchange contract, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lend the remainder amount of KRW 40 million to the Defendant, and to bear the interest for the secured debt of KRW 40 million with respect to the secured debt established on the instant building.

C. On August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land pursuant to the instant exchange contract, and the Defendant also completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building to the Plaintiff on the same day.

However, the Defendant’s failure to repay the above KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to transfer the instant building again to the Defendant on condition that the Defendant assumed the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant building, and deducted KRW 25 million from the above payment, which was the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant land that the Defendant already discharged, and paid the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 40 million, if the Defendant paid the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would move the instant building to the Defendant (hereinafter “building relocation agreement”), and the due date was finally postponed on May 30, 206.

E. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s demand, the Defendant shall pay KRW 40 million according to the building relocation agreement until the above maturity expires.