1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed, respectively.

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

1. On February 8, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with 42 square meters of land of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant land No. 1”) to exchange with 11 square meters of land of this case (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”). Accordingly, on February 14, 2002, on the instant land No. 1, the Defendant’s name and the instant land No. 2 registered the transfer of ownership under the Plaintiff’s name.

On December 8, 1997, on the land of this case, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) was completed in the name of the Jinsung Agricultural Cooperatives, the maximum debt amount of KRW 23,00,000,000, and the debtor’s establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case.

On September 13, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the actual agricultural cooperative cancelled the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff concluded the instant exchange contract is that the fence owned by the Plaintiff was invaded on the land No. 2 of this case, which was owned by the Defendant. In fact, since the Plaintiff’s fence on the land No. 2 of this case had not been invaded on the land No. 2 of this case, the instant exchange contract should be cancelled by mistake. The Defendant has a duty to transfer ownership without any defects on the land No. 2 of this case according to the instant exchange contract. Since the instant exchange contract was not cancelled, the instant exchange contract was rescinded by the Defendant’s default.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land No. 1 of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s revocation of mistake was erroneous as to whether the fence owned by the Plaintiff infringed on the instant land No. 2, but the crime of intrusion is determined by the exchange contract of this case.