1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Plaintiff A asserts that Plaintiff A lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on May 19, 2016.

The facts that Plaintiff A remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s deposit account on May 19, 2016, and delivered KRW 10 million in cash are either disputed between the parties or by the statement of evidence No. 1. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff A's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim for supplement of exchange contract

A. The plaintiffs asserted on May 20, 2016 between the plaintiffs and the defendant on May 20, 2016, and against the defendant, they claim that the defendant would pay 86.5 million won each (i.e., KRW 1773 million ± 200,0000,000,0000,0000 won, which is the difference between the market price of the exchanged real estate and that of KRW 15.9 m2,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

B. We examine the judgment. According to the facts that the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to exchange real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case around May 20, 2016, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the sales contract with the purport that the plaintiffs sell the real estate No. 1 of this case to the defendant for the price of KRW 323 million, and the sales contract with the purport that the defendant sells the real estate No. 2 of this case to the defendant for the price of KRW 150 million as of May 20, 2016, the plaintiffs were prepared as of May 20, and the defendant as to the real estate No. 2 of this case as to the real estate No. 1 of this case, respectively.