1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 650 million (the contract amount of KRW 65 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 585 million on November 6, 2015) to the Plaintiff at KRW 650,000,000 (the contract amount of KRW 65,00,000,000,000,000,000 on the date of the contract) for the factory site C 7178 square meters and its ground factory building (hereinafter collectively “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant was prepared and delivered a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the notarial deed of this case”) No. 847, No. 847, 2016, with the purport that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 265 million from the Defendant on June 10, 2016, and repay the said borrowed money in lump sum on September 30, 2016,” by a notary public who was prepared and delivered from the Plaintiff.

In addition, on June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, on June 27, 2016, a notary public, stating that “F borrowed KRW 266 million from the Defendant on June 27, 2016, and make a lump sum repayment of the said borrowed money on September 30, 2016,” a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 968 of the 2016 (hereinafter “the second notarial deed”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the preparation of the second notarial deed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the debtor, are to invalidate the first notarial deed of this case with the Plaintiff as the debtor instead of preparing the second notarial deed of this case with the F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter referred to as “F”). At the time of the preparation of the second notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the debtor, had F bear the obligation of the remainder

(E) The Plaintiff’s assertion seems to have been asserted to the effect that F is exempted from the obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale under the instant sales contract. Therefore, it is necessary to deny compulsory execution based on the first authentic deed of this case.