1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff established E with the Plaintiff’s wife as the representative director, and from August 2003, operated the automobile maintenance business entity from Ansan-si F (hereinafter “instant maintenance business entity”). Around March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff comprehensively transferred all rights and obligations with respect to the instant maintenance business entity to the Defendant, who is the wife of G, who is the Dong Dong in D’s birth.

B. On November 201, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to comprehensively acquire all rights and obligations regarding the instant maintenance plant business from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition agreement”); and the Defendant, from May 9, 201 to November 6, 2013, prepared, on November 25, 2013, a letter of commitment to perform the performance of obligations, including national taxes (e.g., an amount equivalent to KRW 280,000,000) that the Plaintiff acquired and paid, as a result of the operation of the instant maintenance plant business from May 9, 2011 to November 6, 2013. In order to secure the performance of the said letter of commitment, a notary public drafted on November 25, 2013 a promissorysory note with a face value of KRW 150,00,000,000, the issuer, the issuer, the issuer, the H, the date of issuance, and a promissory note on November 21, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not transfer the instant maintenance plant’s place of business to the Plaintiff and did not transfer the documents, passbooks, cash cards, etc. necessary for the change of the name of permission necessary for the business. From November 26, 2013, Nonparty I, a partner, participated in the management and was unable to operate the instant maintenance plant’s business. Therefore, the instant transfer contract was revoked, and compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied because there was no obligation under the instant notarial deed, which was prepared for the guarantee of performance.