1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon entering into an investment contract on August 19, 2003 by recommending C to invest in the business of purchasing newly-built commercial buildings at a low price and selling them in lots, the Defendant fulfilled the obligation of KRW 500 million to C by August 19, 2004, under the Gyeongnam Law Firm No. 4832, the Defendant fulfilled the obligation of KRW 500 million to C until August 19, 2004. However, if the obligation is not fulfilled, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed that recognizes immediate compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. (i) A filed a lawsuit to raise an objection, and filed an application for a compulsory auction of the Defendant’s real estate on the real estate with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed with Changwon District Court HH, and the same court rendered a decision to commence the auction procedure on May 27, 2010.

She filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the effect that “the compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is prohibited,” and the Defendant filed an application for suspension of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed (original District Court 2010Kahap7119, hereinafter “relevant District Court 2010Kaga815”), and the said auction procedure was suspended on July 19, 2010 by the Changwon District Court 2010Kaga815 decision to suspend compulsory execution.

On December 21, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment accepting the claim on the ground that the Notarial Deed of this case had expired due to the settlement agreement concluded between the defendant and C and the implementation thereof, and the appellate court [Supplementary High Court 2012Na481] rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal.

C. (1) On March 6, 2012, the Defendant filed a claim for damages and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, and filed a request for auction based on the authentic deed of this case, the validity of which was terminated, against C, on the ground that the application constitutes an unjust enforcement. On the other hand, C, which bears the Defendant’s liability for damages, is entered in the separate sheet that it was originally owned