1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s external third village’s incidental to D (the deceased’s death around January 2016, hereinafter “the deceased”), and is the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s outer village.

B. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant with a face value of KRW 500,000,000 at face value, and as of January 30, 2018, and on the same day, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant and issued it to the Defendant by a notary public, who, as of the same day, read “the addressee is the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is the issuer, and the Plaintiff is the holder of the issuance and signature of the said promissory note, and if the payment of the said note is delayed to the holder, he/she shall be aware that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”

(c)

On May 17, 2018, the Defendant, based on the instant work deed, was subjected to a decision to commence a compulsory auction with respect to the Plaintiff’s share among the forest E (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in Seongbuk-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), and the registration was completed on the same day.

(d)

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor's Office on September 16, 202 on the preparation of the instant process deed and the subsequent compulsory execution acts, on the grounds that there was no suspicion against both the Plaintiff and the Defendant on September 16, 202, on the following grounds.

1. On October 27, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s evasion of compulsory execution, false entry of the original copy of the process deed, and the exercise of the original copy of the process deed containing false entries, the Plaintiff became entitled to transfer the aggregate of the above forest shares 21/42 on the grounds of inheritance and donation by agreement division and division around October 24, 2015. The complainant asserted the share of inheritance against the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. and claimed revocation of fraudulent acts, etc.