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

A. On June 15, 2012, the Defendant entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on a set of KRW 297,000,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to “new construction works of a factory in Pakistan-si.”

B. From June 25, 2012 to October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied C Company with steel bars equivalent to KRW 32,417,00 in relation to the said construction work.

C. Around March 5, 2015, C Company transferred KRW 32,417,00,000 among the claim for construction price of KRW 446,050,00 against the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the following purport.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of the acquisition amount of KRW 32,417,00,00, the Defendant, except with the Defendant’s consent at the time of the instant construction contract, entered into a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims against the Defendant to a third party. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because he knew or was unaware of the existence of such special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims.

B. Where a third party takes over a claim from a creditor, the obligor of the relevant legal doctrine may set up against the assignee who knows the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim or the assignee who was grossly negligent when he/she was unaware of the existence of such special agreement.

In this context, gross negligence refers to the absence of knowledge of the existence of a special agreement because it does not give any attention to the extent required to ordinary people even if it does not pay considerable attention to it, if it is easy to easily understand the existence of such special agreement.

A third party's bad faith or gross negligence shall be asserted and proved by a person who intends to oppose the transferee by a special contract prohibiting the assignment of claims.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8310 Decided May 13, 2010). C.