1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C Religious Organizations D companies, and on September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with respect to the said contract as above, “declaration and Modification Agreement” (hereinafter “relevant Non-Trade Agreement”).

B. According to the relevant non-transaction contract, the Plaintiff is obliged to establish and operate a teacher in the name of C religious organization D in person or on consignment with the whole country. On the other hand, the Plaintiff is obliged to supply a fluor who is required to re-influorate or build a house in the name of C religious organization D, and to supply a fluor who is required for training or construction.

C. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the Non-Korean Teachers’ Compensation Contract (hereinafter “instant Non-Korean Contract”). According to that, the Defendant: (a) decided that “a lump-sum teacher in the name of C religious organization D is established and operated directly or by entrustment to the nation; (b) was engaged in non-business activities necessary for re-influence or construction in the name of a Korean teacher, such as Domination, plaque, flag, and pelto; and (c) was able to increase the number of Buddhist goods handled or verified by the Plaintiff only for the non-foreign goods handled or verified.

In addition, according to the contract of this case, if the defendant fails to perform the contract, the contract is terminated, and the defendant is required to pay the plaintiff a penalty of KRW 200 million.

However, D prior to the performance of the relevant non-transaction contract entered into with the Plaintiff, D had cancelled the contract, and accordingly the relevant non-transaction contract became null and void.

E. The Defendant, without knowledge of the invalidation of the relevant non-commercial transaction contract, has made a fraudulent transaction with D company from March 2015.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is monthly to the plaintiff according to the contract of the non-sale of this case.