1. The defendant shall write down to the plaintiff each real estate stated in the attached list (the indication of the section building for exclusive use).

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff on March 12, 2008 on the ownership of each of the real estate (hereinafter each of the real estate of this case) listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 to the plaintiff's list (the indication of the section building) and the right to lease the store No. 3-4 and 5, and the plaintiff

4. In accordance with the above exchange contract on 23. 23. The fact that each of the instant real estate was registered for the transfer of ownership as indicated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, at the time of the conclusion of the above exchange contract, the right to lease under the Defendant’s name is maintained in the name of the Defendant until the Plaintiff’s request, and the Defendant’s exercise of the right as lessee’s representative, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay monthly remuneration to the Defendant in equal amounting to KRW 2,00,000,000. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to transfer the said title to the Plaintiff around 2010. However, the fact that the Defendant rejected the transfer and transferred the said title

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff acquired the right of rescission for the above exchange contract on the ground that the defendant's duty of transfer in the name of lease is impossible.

The plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the above exchange contract based on the above right of rescission is clearly stated in the record that the complaint of this case delivered to the defendant on December 29, 2014.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition, which completed each of the real estate of this case, to the plaintiff with the performance of the duty to restore the original status following the

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that it is improper to demand the defendant to fulfill his obligation only when the plaintiff did not perform the agreement that the plaintiff delegated the above right of lease to the defendant at the time of the conclusion of the above exchange contract to pay the above 2 million won per month as remuneration.