1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and above.

1. Basic facts

A. The loan certificate of this case (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) is written between C and the Defendant, and the seal of the Defendant is affixed to the name next to the Defendant’s name of the loan certificate of this case.

The loan certificate of KRW 20,000,000 is borrowed and promised to perform the following provisions on a regular basis.

1. The repayment period of the principal shall be April 27, 201 and shall be agreed to be satisfied at the address of the creditor;

2. On April 27, 2010, when the maturity for principal has expired, the obligor has lost the benefit of time and the obligee has to pay the principal and interest without objection even if the obligee claims the balance of the principal and interest.

B. C transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant on April 27, 2010.

C. C transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on December 10, 2013, and the notice of the said transfer reached the Defendant on December 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where the assignment of claims, etc. is primarily carried out for the purpose of making judgment on the defense prior to the merits, even if the assignment of claims does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the Trust Act. Whether the main purpose is to conduct litigation is to determine whether the assignment of claims is a principal purpose in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the assignment of claims, the time interval

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da4210 Decided December 6, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da20909 Decided March 25, 2004, etc.). The Defendant asserted that the assignment of claims between C and the Plaintiff was null and void solely for the purpose of having the Plaintiff conduct litigation on behalf of C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3...