1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the part concerning the new argument that was made by the court of first instance under Section 3, Section 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Matters to be determined additionally;

Furthermore, in order for the Plaintiff to recover the claim for the price of the instant goods, the Defendant delegated the collection business of the claim for the price of the goods to the database that the Defendant transferred to the same credit group. On January 29, 2016, the representative of the credit group that received such delegation from the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant exempted all the manufacturers constituting the claim group from the Defendant’s debt, including the instant price of the goods, and thus, the instant goods payment obligation also ceased to exist.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the representative of the bond group is recognized as exempt the total amount of KRW 11,854,363,345, which the defendant and the defendant served as the representative director with respect to the manufacturing company constituting the bond group on January 29, 2016.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entrusted the collection of the instant goods payment claim to the Defendant’s individual to the claim group only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 12-1 through 54, 2 through 4, and 7, the Plaintiff holds the claim for the purchase of goods against the Defendant’s individual as well as the claim for the purchase of goods of KRW 1,947, 220,374 against the Defendant’s individual around January 26, 2016. However, it is only recognized that the Plaintiff delegated only the business related to the collection of the above claim for the purchase of goods of KRW 1,947, 220,374 to the claim group.

Therefore, the exemption of debt between the representative of the claim group and the defendant is effective in this case.