1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of basic recognition;

A. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an exchange contract (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”) with the content of exchanging part of the same Rib354 square meters owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant prior to the exchange”) of the same land owned by the Plaintiff, Nam-si, Namwon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land prior to the exchange”). At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to specify the exact size of the Defendant’s land prior to the exchange according to the result of the boundary survey.

B. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant conducted a boundary survey. As a result, the area of the Defendant’s land prior to the exchange subject to the instant exchange contract was surveyed with 197 square meters.

C. According to the result of the boundary survey, the Defendant divided the Defendant’s land before the exchange into E on April 15, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on April 16, 2014 according to the instant exchange contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to specify the land of the Defendant prior to the exchange and exchange the said land with the Plaintiff prior to the exchange, on the basis of the fences, large-scale trees, and dub trees existing at the time of the exchange.

However, the Defendant, without complying with such agreement, independently conducted a boundary surveying, and accordingly completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff by dividing the Defendant’s land before exchange. This constitutes either the instant exchange contract with the intent of deceiving the Plaintiff, or the Defendant’s failure to perform its obligations under the instant exchange contract.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has revoked the exchange contract of this case.