A. On January 23, 2017, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) lent KRW 918 million to the Defendant. On February 4, 2017, the Defendant repaid KRW 13 million out of the above loans to the Nonparty Company.

B. Around April 12, 2018, Nonparty Company transferred KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, among the claims that Nonparty Company owns against the Defendant, and the notice of assignment of claims reached the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 78.8 million won per annum under the Civil Act from June 15, 2018 to March 8, 2019, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the Plaintiff, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until March 8, 2019, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.

(A) The plaintiff sought a payment of KRW 100 million to the defendant, but since the balance of the loan claims that the non-party company has against the defendant is KRW 78.8 million, the claim exceeding the above KRW 78.8 million is without merit). 3. The defendant's argument is without merit.

A. The defendant asserts that the assignment of claims between the plaintiff and the non-party company is null and void because the plaintiff's claim against the non-party company, which is the cause of the act, is nonexistent. However, the assignment of claims cannot be said to have a cause claim in the assignment of claims. Thus, the defendant

B. The Defendant, on January 23, 2017, deposited by the non-party company to the Defendant, is not a loan to the Defendant of the non-party company, but a personal monetary transaction between D and the non-party company that actually operated the Defendant company at the time, and thus, it is against the Defendant of the non-party company.