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

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

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to exchange 120 Chinese Chinese Dogs (hereinafter “instant Dogs”) with each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and E owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

On the other hand, while the market price of each of the instant lands was approximately KRW 120 million, the market price of each of the instant lands is KRW 30 million and there is a significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration, and, subjectively, the instant exchange contract was concluded using the Plaintiff’s initiative or experience, and thus, the instant exchange contract is an unfair legal act.

Therefore, since the exchange contract of this case is null and void, the registration of ownership transfer of this case and the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case, which was made based on the invalid exchange contract, are also null and void.

B. The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and such an act is established when a transaction which has lost balance as such is conducted using gambling, rashness, or inexperience of the affected party. The purpose of the act is to regulate gambling, rash, or influence of the injured party. The requirement for establishing an unfair legal act is not all the requirement, but only a part of the requirement is sufficient. The term "rashness" refers to the in-depth state in which the ordinary person does not pay attention to the outcome of the act at the time of decision to engage in a specific act, and the term "non-experience" refers to the lack of experience in a particular area, not to any lack of experience in a particular area, but to the general public.

Gap 3.