1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The reasons why this Court's statement concerning this part of the basic facts are the same as the part of the "1. Basic Facts" from No. 9 to No. 10, No. 3, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's second to

2. Whether the Defendants’ obligation to pay the acquisition money exists and the scope thereof

A. The reasoning for this court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of transfer based on the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff on October 15, 2013 is identical to that of the part concerning the second claim (Articles 3, 14, and 5, and 7) of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that D’s right of representation was granted to the Plaintiff as to the claim for the amount of the transfer money based on the assignment of the credit as of February 27, 2014, and the Plaintiff granted D the Plaintiff the power of representation to conclude the transfer of credit as of February 27, 2014, as in the instant contract for the transfer of credit as of October 15, 2013, and the Deceased concluded a contract for the transfer of credit as of February 27, 2014 with D’s agent and notified the Defendants of the fact of the said transfer, the Defendants asserted that D is liable to pay KRW 200 million based on the transfer of credit as of February 27, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

However, the following circumstances that can be seen in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings on the video of the evidence No. 1, namely, ① at the time of the assignment contract as of February 27, 2014, the Deceased was in possession of only D’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint, and the original of the instant lease contract as of February 27, 2014, and ② D’s seal imprint affixed to the assignment contract as of February 27, 2014, were not in possession of D’s power of attorney or certificate of seal impression.