1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s purpose is to manufacture steel products such as steel plates, marries, steel bars, etc., and the Defendant is each corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing steel products and non-ferrous metals, and D (hereinafter “D”) is a corporation established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of steel products.

B. From around 2010 to D, the Plaintiff was issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 500 million at D’s representative director, and a issuer A with respect to the unpaid amount of goods arising from the supply of steel products, etc. to D.

C. On August 30, 2013, A entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer KRW 350,000,000 to the Defendant for the claim for the return of the lease deposit stated in the purport of the claim that A had held against B (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”). On September 14, 2013, A notified the transfer of claims to B, and the notification reached September 16, 2013.

The plaintiff's claim for the amount of unpaid goods against D by September 6, 2013 is a total of 462,749,078 won.

E. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Southern District Court to issue a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for refund of the above lease deposit deposit against A to the Seoul Southern District Court.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 12 (including the number of each class), Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Defendant, a creditor of the purchase price of goods D, entered into the instant transfer contract in collusion with A for the purpose of being repaid prior to other creditors despite being aware that D’s representative director, who was the creditor of the purchase price of goods D, was in excess of the debt, and thus, the instant transfer contract should be revoked

As to this, the defendant's assignment contract of this case is an act of legitimate repayment between the defendant and D according to the goods supply contract.