A. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the assignment of claims between the Defendant and C (hereinafter “instant contract on the assignment of claims”) with the effect that the Defendant is assigned to the lessor C and the lessee’s claim (as to No. 1411, 40,000,000, the lease deposit under the lease contract that became the lessee and the lessee) that the Defendant owns with C (hereinafter “instant contract on the assignment of claims”), and notified C of the fact of the transfer and reached the arrival of June 21, 2012.

B. On May 23, 2014, C deposited KRW 28,810,390, which is the balance after deducting the overdue rent, etc. from the above lease deposit (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Busan District Court No. 3469, Busan District Court (hereinafter “instant deposit”). On the grounds that the assignment notice does not include a written contract for the assignment of claims, the deposited person entered the Plaintiff or the Defendant on the ground that the validity of the assignment of claims is doubtful.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the assignment contract of this case was concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant in this case where no dispute exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the right to claim payment of the deposit of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant to claim payment is the plaintiff as the transferee of the claim.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the assignment of claims in this case was invalidated on the ground that the defendant's execution contract was concluded at the plaintiff's request for convenience in order to preferentially receive KRW 20,000 as part of the price claim due to the construction contract (the FF construction contract concluded by the plaintiff and E on February 22, 2012) executed against the plaintiff by the defendant's Eul, or that the claim which caused the conclusion did not exist as a subsequent offset, etc.

First of all, the argument that the claim assignment contract of this case was concluded for convenience is without sufficient evidence.

Next, the argument that the assignment of claims is invalidated due to the extinguishment of the underlying claim.