2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, on February 16, 2007, lent to the Plaintiff each of them as KRW 250,000,000, KRW 250,000,000 on March 2, 2007, and KRW 92,00,000 on March 13, 2008, with interest rate of KRW 2.5% on February 5, 2008 and September 30, 2009.

B. When the Plaintiff delayed the repayment of the said money, the Defendant applied for a payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea47138; hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff on May 26, 2017, and the said court issued a payment order on July 20, 2012 stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 592,00,000 won and 30% interest per annum from September 30, 2009 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on September 29, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts or absence of dispute with this court, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff transferred the plaintiff's claim against C to the defendant, and substituted for the repayment of the debt under the payment order of this case, the execution under the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is that a debtor transfers another claim in relation to the repayment of obligation to a creditor is presumed to have been transferred by means of a security for repayment of obligation or a repayment, barring special circumstances, and it is not deemed to substitute for the repayment of obligation. As such, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished when the assignment of claim is made. The obligor is exempted from liability within the scope of the obligor’s repayment by receiving the claim transferred by the obligee. As such, the obligor is liable to assert and prove the existing obligation to

B. (Supreme Court Decision 95Da1660 delivered on December 22, 1995, etc.)

Judgment

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred to the defendant a claim equivalent to KRW 1,410,000,000 of the plaintiff's claim against C.

However, the Plaintiff.