1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants and the conjunctive claim against the defendant A are all dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2013, Defendant Wluxan entered into an agreement on the assignment of claims to the Defendant that the amount of KRW 8,059,920 for the supply of steel products owned by the forest industry was transferred to the Defendant A, but the notification of the transfer may be sent to the Defendant A (hereinafter “instant agreement on the assignment of claims”).

B. Defendant A sent a written contract on the assignment of claims and a written notice of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail, and the content-certified mail reached November 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant notice of the assignment of claims”).

C. The Plaintiff had a promissory note gold claim amounting to KRW 39,522,976 against Defendant Bluxan, and filed an application with the Ulsan District Court 2013TTT1436 for the attachment and assignment order of KRW 8,981,476 of the steel supply price for Defendant Bluxan Industries (hereinafter “instant assignment order”). On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued an assignment order for claim attachment and assignment (hereinafter “instant assignment order”), and the said order reached the forest industry on December 12, 2013.

On January 17, 2014, the Sejong Forest Industry: (a) the Defendants were each deposited on the grounds of the concurrence between the instant assignment of claims and the instant assignment order; and (b) the statutes are based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act; (c) the Ulsan District Court issued a mixed deposit of KRW 7,852,920 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The parties’ assertion as to the primary claim is that: (i) the transferee, not the transferor, was the assignee; (ii) there was no legitimate notification of the assignment of claims; or (ii) the notification of the assignment of claims of this case is invalid because the demand of the present name is not complied with; and (ii) the determination first of all, as to the above argument, the transferee may act on behalf of the transferor.

I would like to say.

The assignment of claim of this case, which is the evidence mentioned above.