A. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D (hereinafter “D”) on the acquisition of a claim with the effect that the Plaintiff would take over the claim equivalent to KRW 320,408,666 out of the claim for the purchase price of goods against D from D (hereinafter “instant contract for the acquisition of a claim”).

B. On June 27, 2014, D notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail (hereinafter “instant assignment of claims”), and the said content-certified mail sent to the Defendant on June 30, 2014.

C. On the other hand, D’s unpaid amount of claim for the purchase of goods is KRW 505,00,000 (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 320,408,666 among the claim for the purchase price of goods against the defendant of D, and the damages for delay.

B. The judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's assertion (1) since it is unclear whether the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against D exists, the defendant asserts that it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods. However, even if the assignment of claims was made as a security for another obligation and the obligation is repaid, it is merely an issue between the transferor and the transferee, and the obligor of the transferred claim should repay the transferred obligation to the transferee regardless of the extinguishment of the obligation between the transferor and the transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23093, Nov. 26, 199). Even if the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against D does not exist, the defendant cannot refuse the plaintiff'

Therefore, the defendant's status.