However, there is no fact that B entered into an assignment contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive the notification of assignment from the Defendant or B or consent to the assignment of assignment.

Therefore, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have taken over the claim for the purchase price of goods against the plaintiff from B, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

All rights and responsibilities relating to the Defendant B’s borrowing of funds were assigned to C who worked as the vice president of B at the time.

On August 31, 2016, the Defendant leased KRW 400 million to B with its operating fund in response to C’s request, and received KRW 400 million from C with its legitimate authority out of the goods payment claim against B against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 400 million to the defendant who is the assignee of the claim.

Judgment

In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection against such a claim shall comply with the principle of allocation of burden in general civil procedure.

Therefore, when the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim was not established in a lawsuit claiming objection against the final payment order, the cause of the claim is proved by the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim is invalid or extinguished as a false declaration of prior agreement.