A. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) on the assignment of claims for the supply of steel products of KRW 55,211,200, which C had against the Defendant, with the purport that the Plaintiff takes over. C notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on March 27, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On April 30, 2014, C supplied the Defendant with 35,211,200 won (including value-added tax); on June 9, 2014, H beam amounting to KRW 27,711,000 (including value-added tax); on May 7, 2014, KRW 5,000,000; and around June 9, 2014, KRW 15,000,000 was paid from the Defendant; thus, the Defendant was not obligated to pay KRW 35,211,200 (including value-added tax), KRW 27,211,200, KRW 200, KRW 5,000 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant, the assignee, KRW 30,000, KRW 300, KRW 15,000, KRW 105,000 and KRW 15,205,000).3).

C. Determination 1 on April 30, 2014: (a) there is a tax invoice No. 1-7, as evidence consistent with the fact that the portion of the scrap metal transaction was not recognized: (b) however, the said evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that a scrap metal transaction equivalent to KRW 27,50,000 exists between C and the Defendant around April 30, 2014, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement No. 10-10 of the evidence No. 1 and witness D’s testimony, there was a scrap metal transaction between C and the Defendant, but there was no scrap metal transaction equivalent to KRW 27,500,000 between C and the Defendant as of April 30, 2014 as of April 30, 2014, and the said tax invoice merely states that there was a lack of tax invoices.