1. The Defendant’s KRW 175,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2013 to July 9, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 7, 2011, the parties to an exchange contract concluded a real estate exchange contract with the intention to exchange 1/2 shares out of 1/2 of 181 square meters of land and 181 square meters of land in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s exchange goods”) and 115 square meters of land and 1/2 shares in Singu, Singu, where the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of F, the Defendant’s goods (hereinafter “the Defendant’s exchange goods”) and H 6,545 square meters of land and H 6,545 square meters of land in Shin-gun, Seoul-gun,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant exchange contract”). The assessed amount of the Plaintiff’s exchange goods between the original and the Defendant was KRW 180,000,000, excluding the actual loan amount of KRW 230,000,000, and the forest land located in the newanan-gun was KRW 5,00,000.

B. According to the instant exchange contract by the Defendant’s nonperformance, the Defendant only transferred the ownership of forest land located in the new military base to the Plaintiff, despite having received ownership of the goods exchanged by the Plaintiff, but did not transfer the ownership of the goods exchanged by the Defendant.

C. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant exchange contract on the ground that he/she did not perform his/her duty to transfer the ownership of the goods exchanged by the Defendant, which reaches the Defendant at that time, and thereafter, the duplicate of the instant complaint reached the Defendant on September 16, 2013, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant exchange contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination and conclusion

A. According to the above facts, the exchange contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of cancellation as of September 16, 2013, on the ground of the Defendant’s non-performance of obligation to transfer ownership of the exchanged goods, and the Defendant’s restoration to its original state.