2. The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff: Defendant C’s KRW 73,00,000 and its corresponding amount. < Amended by Act No. 1320, Mar. 3, 2015>

A. On November 28, 2012, Defendant D, in the event that Defendant D did not pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30 million, not later than February 8, 2013, issued and delivered a written statement that the machinery and parts of equipment in the wife population E are transferred to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 3, 2013, Defendant C prepared and sent to the Plaintiff, not later than November 15, 2013, a cash misappropriation statement stating that a sum of KRW 73 million will be paid with loans, expenses, etc. (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

C. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the claim claim amounting to KRW 73 million, which the Plaintiff had against the Defendants, to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims on January 29, 2015, and the said notification reached the Defendants around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred all the claims against the Defendants to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

B. 1) With respect to the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the indication of the claim against Defendant C: The ground for the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim against the Defendants by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(2)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant D is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 73 million as agreed upon in the respective documents of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the allegation by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is without merit, under the premise that the Plaintiff has a claim for the agreed amount under the letter of this case against Defendant D.

In addition to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, Defendant D borrowed KRW 30 million from the plaintiff with Defendant C and borrowed the above borrowed money from the plaintiff until February 8, 2013.