A. On December 11, 2012, the Plaintiff calculated and transferred the remaining loan claims against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff at KRW 216,211,846, and notified the Defendant of the said transfer by content-certified mail.

B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 428,030,000 as stated in the separate sheet from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court on this safety defense is asserted as invalid because the assignment of claims between the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor constitutes a trust assignment aiming at litigation, and therefore, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 and 8-1 through 8, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor received the remaining loans from the plaintiff as a repayment order for his own loan claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination as to the cause of claim 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor lent total of KRW 620,590,000 to the Defendant by means of cash payment or transfer of account, etc. as shown in the attached Table from August 4, 2004 to January 22, 2010, and received reimbursement from the Defendant in total of KRW 428,030,000 as indicated in the attached Table. Therefore, the Defendant, to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor who received the Plaintiff’s remaining loan claims against the Defendant, was obligated to pay the Defendant the remaining loan claims amounting to KRW 192,560,00 (i.e., KRW 620,590,000 - KRW 428,030,000) and damages for delay as indicated in the attached Table No. 282, Dec. 28, 2004; and (ii) the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,360,209 to the Defendant.