The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company primarily responsible for installment financing business, facility leasing business, credit loans, or secured loan business.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased, from CNCerer and punching machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”), and leased the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to pay monthly rent of KRW 7,877,400 to the Defendant for 36 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff did not pay rent under the instant lease contract from August 25, 2014.

Under the premise that the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time pursuant to Article 30(2)1 of the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement (at the time of delay for one month or longer from the time of payment of the lease fee), the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order to the Plaintiff at KRW 218,254,270 in the remainder of the lease fee under the instant lease agreement, and the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On October 24, 2014, the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

E. On the basis of the instant payment order, the Defendant received KRW 15,842,670 from the Changwon District Court DD Real Estate Auction case against the Plaintiff.

F. The Defendant received 11,853,949 won from the Changwon District Court Masan Branch to the Plaintiff in the distribution procedure of the collected money, subject to a collection order for the seizure and collection of claims against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The actual party to the instant lease agreement is E that actually used the instant machine, and F was aware of this fact by the Defendant’s contracting officer.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case to which the plaintiff is a party is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

This case.