1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of an exchange contract in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant B: (a) KRW 100,000,000 and January 2, 2011 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the part of the claim for cancellation of an exchange contract among the lawsuits in this case refers to the revocation of an exchange contract concluded on May 14, 201 with Defendant D as to real estate listed in the separate sheet. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of an exchange contract is lawful, since it constitutes a lawsuit for formation and a lawsuit for cancellation of a legal act constitutes the purpose of a lawsuit for change in existing legal relations, and it is recognized only where the law expressly provides for the effect of formation of existing legal relations, and it is not permissible if there is no legal basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da35462, Sept. 14, 1993). Since there is no legal ground for filing a lawsuit for direct revocation of an exchange contract, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the exchange contract is unlawful and dismissed.

2. Determination on the part of the instant lawsuit concerning the claim for damages

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff appears to be Defendant D’s owner (actual owner) on May 14, 201 between Defendant B and Defendant B.

) E (hereinafter referred to as “sealed real estate”) at the time of smuggling;

360,000,000 won assessed on the Plaintiff’s land and building F in Busan-gu, Busan-do (hereinafter “G real estate”).

(1) The Plaintiff’s 150 million won was evaluated and exchanged as 300 million won of the assessed value, and 70 million won was loaned by the Plaintiff as security, among which the Plaintiff’s 70 million won was cancelled, and 80 million won was used as the construction cost of the building being newly constructed in sealed real estate, and the Defendant shall be paid 40 million won as the difference in the exchange contract and the down payment (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the same account on May 16, 201, and KRW 10 million to the same account among individuals.

3 Defendant B, May 19, 201, indicated in the “Real Estate Exchange Agreement” to the Plaintiff on May 19, 201.