The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the nature of assignment of claim

A. Based on the adopted evidence, the court below found the following facts: ① (a) the representative director of E transferred the shares and operating rights, etc. of the above company to D Ownership Settlement Committee (hereinafter “Settlement Countermeasure Committee”) on June 23, 1997; (b) the payment rate shall be 3.5 billion won on September 23, 1997; and (c) the interest rate for delay shall be 36% per annum; and (d) the claim for transfer price, such as the above shares, to B with the Settlement Countermeasure Committee on June 23, 1997, was 1.0 billion won on June 23, 1997; and (e) the Plaintiff did not pay 1.0 billion won on September 23, 1997 to the Plaintiff who was in a business relationship with the above Company, by adding the above claim to the Plaintiff’s obligee by 9.20 billion won on September 12, 1997; and (e) the Plaintiff’s claim for delay shall not be paid by 9.20% on September 19, 19, 19.

Based on such factual basis, the lower court acknowledged that the transfer of the instant claim against the Plaintiff and F was substituted by the repayment of the original claim of this case, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, including the fact that the Plaintiff and F transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff and F in lieu of the repayment of the original claim of this case and returned the promissory note issued by E, which was secured by the original claim of this case, to the said company.

(b) this part;