1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,860,465 as well as 5% per annum from October 26, 2017 to October 12, 2018 as to the Plaintiff.

1. On May 5, 201, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to exchange 4,855 square meters of the instant real estate and the instant forest owned by the Defendant and C, and part 1,500/11,000 of the access road portion (hereinafter “D land”) out of the 37,062 square meters of land owned by the Defendant and C, Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant, and C (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

According to the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the shares of each of the instant real estate to Defendant and C on July 6, 201 as the Taean District Court Registry of Taean District Court No. 13607 received on July 6, 2011, and the Defendant and C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the shares of each of the instant real estate as to the shares of the Defendant and C, as to the shares of 2,446.5 square meters (total 4,893 square meters (total 5,300 square meters) among the shares of 5,300 square meters of land E in Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, Chungcheongnamnam Budget-gun (D, 37,062 square meters of land and 4,893 square meters as stated in the exchange contract) of 5,300 square meters in each of the shares

On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “In the event that the soil exploitation work is not implemented on D land within two years and six months after natives (up to September 30, 2014), each of the instant real estate of Friuri Building is originally owned by the Plaintiff, and D land is owned by the Defendant.”

At the time of the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the Defendant and C had their own expenses with regard to D land during the period of the land erosion and access road construction. It is reasonable to view that such construction duties are incorporated into the terms of the instant exchange contract and constitute an essential part of the contract.

It is reasonable to deem that the obligation of the soil erosion construction and access road construction for the Defendant and C’s D land is in an impossible condition. It is also reasonable to deem that the duplicate of the complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the instant exchange contract on the ground of the Defendant’s and C’s nonperformance of obligation, reaches the Defendant and C on June 21, 2013.