1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2013, C entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of business (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer and acquisition of business”) with the purport that D will pay C a monthly rent of KRW 35 million from November 1, 2013 to April 30, 2015, which is the final payment date for the purchase price, to sell all the real estate and facilities of the Plaintiff Company that it was the representative director, to D, and D was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company on July 11, 2014.

B. On October 7, 2014, as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, D: (a) repaid to the Defendant (Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Company E) the amount of goods and short-term loans to the Defendant of the Plaintiff Company KRW 584,495,468 on October 10, 2014 due date for repayment of KRW 584,468; (b) interest and delay damages; and (c) entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that compulsory execution is recognized at the time of nonperformance; and (d) a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that the said deed was completed by 620

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”). C.

On October 15, 2014, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s real estate and movable property based on the instant notarial deed and applied for compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s real estate and movable property, and the compulsory execution procedure for the Plaintiff’s movable property was commenced on October 16, 2014.

D was dismissed on October 10, 2014 as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and C was reappointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the notarial deed of Plaintiff, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was prepared in collusion with the Defendant’s actual operator, G and G’s husband, who was the Defendant’s representative director, by abusing his/her power of representation, or constitutes the Plaintiff Company’s own trade with the Plaintiff Company that imposes the Plaintiff’s personal obligation. The Defendant is