A. As of July 31, 2015, the Defendant received royalties from the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not pay KRW 64,000,360 out of the price.

B. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to transfer KRW 64,000,360 to the Plaintiff among the Defendant’s claims against the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “instant contract to transfer claims”).

C. Since February 26, 2016, C prepared and delivered a debt certificate and a written statement to the Plaintiff to pay the said KRW 64,000,360 to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2016, but only paid KRW 500,000 up to the day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assignment by the obligor of another claim in relation to the repayment of the obligation to the obligee is presumed to have been transferred by means of a security for repayment of the obligation or a repayment, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it is not deemed to substitute for the repayment of the obligation, and therefore, the assignment of the obligation cannot be deemed to have terminated immediately when the assignment of the obligation is made. Since the obligee receives the assigned claim from the obligee to the extent that the obligor is exempted from the obligation, the obligee has the burden of asserting

(2) In light of the above legal principle, barring any special circumstance, the assignment of claims of this case ought to be deemed as having been performed by means of a security or repayment for repayment of obligations, rather than by substitution for repayment of obligations, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the assignment of claims cannot be deemed as exemption of the Defendant solely based on the assignment of claims.

As to this, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they agreed that the defendant was exempted from liability only with the assignment of claims at the time of the transfer of claims in this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize that only the statements in subparagraph 1-8 and 9 and the testimony of witness D is insufficient, and that is otherwise recognized.