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

A. On November 13, 2012, a notary public drafted a notarized deed to the effect that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from D on November 13, 2012, and KRW 150,00,000 from D on December 31, 2012, and that the repayment shall be made on December 31, 2012, and the rate for delay damages shall be 20% per annum, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform the said obligation, it shall be acknowledged that there is no objection even if it was immediately enforced.”

B. On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a written statement of payment for the construction cost payment of KRW 150,000,000 for the construction of a new site neighborhood living facility and its ancillary facilities on the high-si, Seoyang-gu and one parcel of land outside Korea, by December 31, 2012. On the same day, the Plaintiff entrusted the preparation of a written certification on the said written statement of payment for the construction cost and received the certificate from a notary public No. 4137 of the New Village, etc. of Law Firm 2012.

The rejection of the above construction price payment includes the content that all rights, including the property rights of the IJ located in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, shall be transferred to D when the owner of the land outside Gyeyang-gu G and the G ground is unable to receive the security loan on each of the above real estate due to the problem of credit.

C. On September 12, 2013, D drafted an assignment contract with the Defendant that: (a) as between September 12, 2013, D transferred to the Defendant all of the claim for repayment of loan and the claim for damages for delay based on the No. 1163 of the No. 1163 (notarial deed as described in the foregoing paragraph (A)) that D holds against the Plaintiff.

(2) The lower court determined that the lower court’s judgment was justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assignment of claims, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assignment of claims, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.