1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2015, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma10269 on November 11, 2015, and was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on December 11, 2015, but the rehabilitation procedures was abolished on April 11, 2016.

B. Meanwhile, in the procedure of D’s rehabilitation, E (E) investigated D’s assets and liabilities from December 11, 2015 to February 12, 2016, and submitted a report of investigation on February 17, 2016 after evaluating the continuous business value and liquidation value. The report of investigation is indicated as holding D’s claim for the amount of KRW 295,170,000 against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) (hereinafter “instant claim for the price of goods”) and ② a loan claim of KRW 202,00,000 against Defendant C (hereinafter “instant loan claim”).

C. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order as Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTT 2017T 3860 regarding the instant loan claim against Defendant C based on the executory payment order for the instant case, such as loans, etc., of this Court No. 2016 tea4688, Mar. 22, 2017, based on the executory payment order for the instant goods payment claim against Defendant C, and the instant loan claim against Defendant C, as Seoul Southern District Court 2017T 3860, and the said order was served on Defendant C and B as the garnishee on March 27, 2017 and April 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B 1) Claim for the price of the instant goods constitutes a false claim arising from a false conspiracy, or the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third party who has a new legal interest with respect to the claim for the price of the instant goods formed externally by obtaining a seizure and collection order, and thus, Defendant B cannot oppose the Plaintiff on the ground that the claim for the price of the instant goods was a false claim.

B. Defendant B is from “D” in the instant reply.