1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, starting the clothing brokerage business under the trade name “D”, proposed to introduce to the Plaintiff the provision of raw and secondary materials necessary for the production of women’s clothes.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff introduced a customer to the Defendant, and provided convenience by receiving the payment to the said customer from the Defendant in an intermediate way, and transferred the payment to the said customer on October 24, 2014, and received KRW 1 million as the case cost.

However, on December 31, 2014, the Defendant found the Plaintiff and agreed to borrow money from a third party for raw and subsidiary materials, and paid money for clothes sales. However, the same shall apply to the Plaintiff who does not pay money on the date when the time for the sale of the product was paid to the obligee, which is not due to the expected time of the sale of the product. On the other hand, I would like to pay money to the obligee, present it to the obligee, and extend the due date for the payment. The Defendant would prepare the authentic deed of promissorysory notes with a face value of KRW 150 million for face value as of January 30, 2015 and use it only for the purpose of extension of the due date, on the face of week.” The Plaintiff issued a promissory notes with face value of KRW 150 million to the Defendant and the due date as of January 30, 2015, and prepared the authentic deed of this case.

However, around September 2015, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s wage claim and deposit claim based on the instant authentic deed even though it was well aware that the authentic deed of the instant promissory note was prepared by false collusion, and filed a lawsuit claiming collection amount against E, a company working for the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the notarial deed of this case is based on the false conspiracy, and there is no effect between the parties, and even if the false conspiracy is not recognized, the notarial deed of this case is prepared by the defendant's deception as the plaintiff belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, the official document of December 21, 2016 (Evidence A No. 4) or the complaint of this case.