1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,510,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 25, 2017 to April 2, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a land trade exchange contract with the following content.

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant dispute as to this part of the exchange price of D land 1: 10 square meters to 13 square meters or 13 square meters (which became final after partition survey). The evidence No. 3, which is the first agreement submitted by the Defendant, is printed as “2.5 million won or square meters,” and is written as “3 million won or square meters,” which is next thereto. The evidence No. 6, which is the first agreement submitted by the Plaintiff, as the first agreement submitted by the Plaintiff, can be cut off the part of the number, and can be called as “2.5 million won or square meters.3) The location of exchange is 46m*1.5m or 70m or 70m or more (which is 5m or 700,000 won or more: 2.5m or more after the exchange of 5m or 7599,000 won or more (which is 300,000 won or more).

The cost of the divisional survey shall be paid by each person after the survey of the other party's land intended for exchange.

shall cooperate with each other so as to ensure that construction is carried out smoothly.

On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly exchange 207 square meters of land E, which was owned by the Plaintiff, and 38 square meters of land owned by the Defendant prior to partition.