1. On April 1, 2013, at par value 40,000,000 for the Defendant of Nonparty B, the payee A, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed with the Jeju District Court a claim against Nonparty B for payment order of KRW 5,302,471 and delay damages therefor. The original copy of the payment order concerning the acquisition amount case was served on the Defendant on October 31, 2012, and became final and conclusive on November 15, 2012.

B. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate amounting to KRW 11,407,139, based on the original copy of the above payment order, with the amount of KRW 11,407,139, and filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate amounting to 756m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Nonparty B, and the Defendant, who was ordered to make a compulsory auction of the said real estate, filed a demand for distribution based on a notarial deed as to promissory notes entered in the text

C. The instant real estate was sold to E in the said compulsory auction procedure, and the said court, on October 11, 2013, prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 64,50,00, out of KRW 23,370,296, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, was distributed to Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (Supo City), and KRW 426,20,00 to the National Health Insurance Corporation, and KRW 17,802,660 to the Defendant, and KRW 5,076,936 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On the other hand, B was the sole property of the instant real estate around April 1, 2013, which was at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, and the appraised value during the compulsory auction procedure for the instant real estate is KRW 23,436,00,00. Thus, Nonparty B was in excess of the debt due to the issuance of the Promissory Notes.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7, and facts to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The act of issuing promissory notes of this case by the Plaintiff 1 as alleged by the parties concerned is null and void, primarily by means of a false conspiracy between the Defendant and B, the instant distribution schedule should be revised, and the conjunctive debtor B issued promissory notes in excess of his/her obligation.