1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, together with the purport of the whole pleadings:

C From around 1994, from 1994, the business operator of the E-automobile maintenance industry (hereinafter referred to as the “instant maintenance business operator”) was operated.

B. Around May 16, 2001, the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, acquired all of the instant maintenance facilities and internal machinery from C with F, and completed business registration on or around June 11, 2001, and operated the instant maintenance facilities from around that time.

C. After that, on April 28, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) between the Defendant and G, who had been an employee of the instant maintenance shop, had the Defendant pay the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 6,79,950, May 15, 2004; and (b) had G pay the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 47,025,00,000, and retirement allowance of KRW 31,008,000; (c) provided inside the instant maintenance shop as a collateral for security for the said security; and (d) drafted a notarial deed stating the purport of the claim that recognizes the existence of no objection even if the said payment was not performed immediately (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not actually work at the instant maintenance office after November 2001, immediately after the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant maintenance office, and thus, the Plaintiff does not entirely bear the obligation to pay retirement allowances to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, at the proposal of G, assumes the Defendant’s obligation to pay false retirement allowances, and only prepared the instant notarial deed in a way to eliminate other creditors in the auction procedure after being provided with inside machinery of the instant maintenance shop as security for transfer and to secure priority over the said machinery.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant should not be allowed.

(b) Pleadings are made in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4.