1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as annual 5% from October 12, 2016 to September 18, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred the Plaintiff’s ownership of the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area of 395 square meters and its ground accommodation (hereinafter “the instant cartel”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant concluded an exchange contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the Plaintiff the ownership of the neighboring land of 80 square meters (hereinafter “the instant road”), which is owned by Nonparty D, of 114 square meters, F25.4 square meters, and 55 square meters among G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant land”), and is owned by H, H, I, and J, of which all of the instant land is owned by Nonparty D, and the ownership of the neighboring land of 80 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”).

(hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). (b)

Upon entering into the instant exchange contract, the Defendant issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Plaintiff stating that the Plaintiff is the payee, the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 100,000,000 for each face value, the issue date on November 11, 2015, and the payment date on July 25, 2016, the payment place Incheon Metropolitan City of the Nam-gu and the “KMomomototy deposit settlement statement” (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). The Plaintiff issued a promissory note to the Defendant stating that the Plaintiff is the payee, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 100,000,000 for each other, and the issue date on November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s promissory note”).

C. On December 30, 2015, pursuant to the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 7, 2015 with respect to one-half portion of each of the instant cartels under the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s L, which was designated by the Plaintiff.

Since then, the plaintiff asserted that he did not transfer ownership under the exchange contract of this case from the defendant, and raised damages against the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2016Kadan59272, which caused the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case and the road of this case under the exchange contract of this case and the delay of the obligation thereof. As to D, the owner of the land of this case shall be subrogated to the defendant.