1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On May 19, 2015, C representing the Plaintiff entered into a real estate exchange agreement (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”) with the Defendants on May 19, 2015, wherein both the Defendants and the 12 households of the D ground officetels 12 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ respective land located in the Gangwon-won Iron-gun E and F (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay 50,000,000 won to the other party as penalty when either party fails to perform the contract.

After entering into the instant exchange contract, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff that they would not perform the instant exchange contract once on May 19, 2015, June 17, 2015, and June 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-4 and 4, each of the statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found above, inasmuch as the Defendants actively revealed that they would not perform the instant exchange contract to the Plaintiff and refused to perform the contract, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000, which is a penalty for breach of contract, and damages for delay.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won to G that brokered the contract, it is alleged that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to nonperformance of the exchange contract of this case. However, as long as the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to have the meaning of liquidated damages amounting to KRW 50,000,000 as penalty, it is not reasonable to claim damages in excess

2. Determination as to the defendants' claim for cancellation of contract

A. Although the Plaintiff had a duty under the good faith principle to notify that the instant building cannot be used as accommodation facilities, the Plaintiff entered into the instant exchange contract with implied permission, thereby constituting deceiving the Defendants, who are the contractual parties, in violation of the duty of disclosure.

The defendants are on the grounds of the above deception.