1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The claim for the price of the instant goods against Defendant B constitutes a false claim based on a false conspiracy, or the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third party who has a new legal interest by obtaining a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for the price of the instant goods formed externally, and thus, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, KRW 295,00,000 among the claim for the price of the instant goods, and its delay damages.

B) Defendant B (1) returned the instant goods supplied by D to D, and the instant goods price claim was extinguished. (2) Even if Defendant B issued revised tax invoices as of July 27, 2016 and removed its appearance, Defendant B’s subsequent provisional attachment of the instant goods price claim arising out of the legal relation formed by false representation in collusion with relevant legal principles is reasonable to deem that the provisional attachment authority is a third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act because it has a new legal interest based on false representation, and thus, as long as it is bona fide, it is difficult to claim the invalidity of the aforementioned false representation agreement, and to withdraw the false representation agreement with the parties, as long as it is bona fide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da74375, May 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da730435, Jul. 31, 2015).