1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and EPP Co., Ltd. on the following: (a) sold movable property (hereinafter “instant machinery”) listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to EPP Co., Ltd. for KRW 450,00,000; (b) on the date of the contract, KRW 90,000,000,000, the remainder of KRW 360,000,000, to receive after the completion of the construction of the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) around that time, the instant machinery was handed over to EP.

B. On December 26, 2014, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed between EP and the Defendant: (a) between EP and EP, the Defendant borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from EP as interest rate of KRW 25% per annum; and (b) January 26, 2015; and (c) in the event that EP does not repay the foregoing borrowed money, the Defendant is aware that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution; and (d) in the process of occupying and amending the said borrowed money as collateral, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement for Loan for Security (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. The Defendant, including the attachment of the instant machinery by the Defendant, did not repay the above loan, and on May 21, 2015, attached the instant machinery to the Changwon District Court 2015No1368 with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed as the title of execution.

(hereinafter the above seizure "the seizure of this case" and the procedure for compulsory execution commenced accordingly is "the compulsory execution of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2-2, 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and Es. Es. Es. removed the instant sales contract from the agreement.

Therefore, the above sales contract becomes retroactively null and void and the ownership of the machinery of this case is also the original owner.