1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) transferred the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim to the Defendant of KRW 218 square meters prior to C in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, which was owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”); and (b) merged with the Defendant of KRW 3,210 square meters prior to D in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”); and (c) the Defendant agreed to divide the portion of the attached drawing(a) (hereinafter “instant land”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on April 19, 2016 regarding the Plaintiff’s land.

The Defendant’s land was merged with the Defendant’s neighboring land on June 23, 2016 and became 3,428 square meters prior to Jeju-si.

Therefore, the Defendant, according to the instant exchange agreement, is obligated to divide the instant land into three thousand and four hundred thousand square meters prior to D, Jeju-si, and to register the ownership transfer to the Plaintiff. However, since natural green belt division area should be at least 121 square meters, it cannot be divided, the Defendant failed to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

As a result, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land to the Defendant, but the Defendant could not divide the instant land and transfer it to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant exchange agreement is null and void as an impossible agreement.

Therefore, on April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the registration of transfer of ownership and the invalidity of the registration of the combination of land, which was completed on the Plaintiff’s land.

2. A lawsuit for confirmation of judgment is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infinite and dangerous, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30803, Jun. 29, 2017). The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exchange land between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is recognized, and the Defendant is also possible to divide the part of the instant land.