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

A. The Plaintiff supplied original intent to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and its operator Nonparty C from June 9, 2005 to September 18, 2008, and did not receive KRW 145,475,492.

On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with C on January 28, 2010, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 145,475,492 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment” received the payment order (Tgu District Court 2010 tea411).

The above payment order was finalized on February 18, 2010.

B. On March 1, 2013, the Defendant established a “E” (hereinafter “E”) that operates textile manufacturing and sales business, and registered its business in the name of the Defendant and operated the said business.

Nonparty C has worked in E since its establishment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. 1) The Defendant, in collusion with C on March 2013, established E by leasing its business registration name to C, and is engaged in the business by taking over the D’s business that C had operated. 2) It is not so.

Even if the defendant invests capital and C operates E as a partnership business by investing business such as customers, etc. of D.

3 Although the Defendant knew or could have known the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant committed a tort that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s claim by attempting to conceal the Plaintiff’s property through the name of the business operator or the same business, thereby interfering with the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution against C.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to 145,475,492 won of the plaintiff's claim amount.

B. Around March 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract with C to transfer or take over the business of C and D, which is over the debt excess, and comprehensively acquired the goodwill and the business assets.

This constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant constitutes the plaintiff's compensation for value.