A. B: (a) during the period from July 2014 to July 2015, 2015, the amount receivable for the transaction was KRW 82,662,351 upon receipt of KRW 757,019,403 from both the Defendant who manufactures electronic parts and motor vehicle parts to supply the human resources equivalent to KRW 839,681,754.

B. C Co., Ltd (the representative B; hereinafter referred to as “C”) supplies the Defendant with human resources equivalent to KRW 144,645,655, and receives KRW 91,892,835 from August 2015 to October 2015 and receives the outstanding amount from the Defendant 52,752,820.

C. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff is against B’s Defendant from B.

The outstanding amount of KRW 82,662,341 shall be the face value of port entry and KRW 82,662,341 shall be the defendant C from C.

On December 2, 2015, B and C received each assignment of the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 52,752,820 at face value at port (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer of claims”). On December 2, 2015, B and C notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

Grounds for Recognition: The statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The defendant asserts that the assignment of the claim of this case does not have the effect of allowing the principal purpose to conduct litigation. Thus, the defendant's testimony of this case does not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, in full view of the purport of the whole pleading, the defendant's testimony of this case 1-2

(a).

The defendant's assertion is without merit since he/she sold the above bonds to the plaintiff as he/she did not pay the outstanding bonds for a considerable period of time.

B. Meanwhile, the defendant alleged that the amount of debt against B and C is 40,000,000 won for the remainder of the debt by repaying it, but the above one-mentioned claim

A. B. We cannot accept the fact that the defendant's repayment in excess of the fact of defense is recognized, as there is no evidence to prove it.

C. Lastly, the defendant's assignment of the claim in this case between the defendant and C.