1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from October 16, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 15, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to exchange D (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”) with the Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant officetel”) No. 308, 308 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 27 million in the difference of the said real estate exchange.

B. Under the above exchange contract, on August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on the ground of sale and purchase, and received KRW 27 million from the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant land, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E on August 25, 2007.

On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant exchange contract on the ground that it is impossible to perform the obligation to transfer the ownership of the instant land.

E. At the time of cancellation of the instant exchange contract, the market price of the instant land is 97 million won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, as F acquired ownership of the Defendant’s land, the Defendant was unable to perform the obligation to transfer ownership under the instant exchange contract, and since the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant exchange contract has reached the Defendant, the instant exchange contract was rescinded.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s restoration following the rescission of the instant exchange contract to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s restoration to the original state of the land of this case, excluding KRW 27 million that the Plaintiff received from the value of the land of this case 97 million, and the promotion of litigation therefor, etc.