Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. 1) C hereinafter “the instant excavation searcher” is D (ROBEX210W, 19.9 tons, 2014 type, hereinafter “the instant excavation searcher”).

(E) Around December 15, 2014, the ownership of the Company E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) acquired on or around December 15, 2014. To raise funds for the purchase of the instant digging machines, around December 10, 2014.

2) On December 16, 2014, the loan amounting to KRW 130,00,000 was extended by 36 months, interest rate of 8.9% per annum (the annual interest rate of 245) and 8.9% per annum (the annual interest rate of 2.45) C created a collateral security right as to the instant mining season against E in order to secure the above loan obligation.

B. C on November 11, 2015, without the consent of E, transferred the instant digging pool to the Defendant on the same day, and completed the registration of transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

(The registration number of the excavation machines in this case was changed to F, and thereafter changed to G on January 11, 2016).

E on May 17, 2018, transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified C of the delegation of the power to notify the assignment of claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, fact inquiry results against the head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff asserts that C is obligated to pay the loan obligation [the principal of the loan = KRW 107,798,518 (the principal + KRW 97,285,505 + the attempted principal + the attempted principal + KRW 10,040,155 + KRW 472,858 + the cost + KRW 472,858] as of April 10, 2018] on the ground that C acquired the ownership of the instant excavation period on the condition that C would discharge the above loan obligation, which is the secured obligation, and thus, the Defendant, as the assignee, should discharge the above obligation to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the above loans to E or the plaintiff at the time of transfer of ownership of the mining ground of this case or thereafter to E or the plaintiff.

3...