1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number).

On August 4, 2011, the Plaintiff lent gold KRW 50 million to a non-party bordering Transport Co., Ltd., and registered a mortgage on the same taxi (B) owned by the non-party bordering transport to secure this.

B. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract to take over 71 taxi transportation business licenses and 71 taxi cars, which are owned by the border transportation from the border transportation, in the amount of KRW 3.4 billion. On October 18, 2013, the Defendant was notified of the receipt of the report of transportation business from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 18, 2013. The Defendant’s employees C completed the registration of transfer by filing an application for the registration of transfer with the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on October 25, 2013.

C. In the column of the special agreement of the automobile transfer certificate (Evidence A 7) submitted at the time of the application by C for the registration of automobile transfer, the phrase “other than the collateral security established on the registry of this automobile shall be limited to those established on the date of the contract.” (i.e., the defendant shall succeed to the case where the amount exceeds the total amount of transfer.” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant special agreement”).

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s judgment on this issue asserted that, on the grounds of the terms of the instant special agreement, the Defendant assumed the obligation to return the loan amounting to KRW 50 million that the Defendant is owed to the Plaintiff.

In the case of the business license and the automobile transfer and takeover contract between the plaintiff and the cross-border transport (No. 1-1) and the additional contract (No. 1-2), etc., the succession of the obligation of the cross-border transport is limited to the retirement allowance and the wages in arrears of the employees of the cross-border transport, and there is no indication of the obligation of the general creditors of the cross-border transport.