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 of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the defendant submitted in this court the evidence submitted by this court to find facts of the court of first instance or that the defendant lacks to recognize the defendant's assertion as to the automatic claim of offset as to the claim of offset, and the court of first instance rejected each statement of evidence Nos. 13 through 48 (including each number). The court of first instance 6 below "8,550,000 won" and "8,640,000 won" of the second sentence and "8,640,000 won" of the second sentence, and "251,80,000 won" of the 7th sentence and "251,870,000 won" of the 7th sentence and "251,970,000 won" are as follows in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition and supplement of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (2) below with respect to the assignment of claims and the defense of offset that the defendant additionally claims are asserted.

The circumstances of the first instance trial are as follows: ① the notarial deed of the original and the Defendant’s claim transfer and takeover contract and the notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption was prepared on January 29, 2016, which is the day following the date of the first instance judgment of the lawsuit demanding the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s revocation of the fraudulent act against H, which is its wife; ② the Plaintiff prepared a memorandum of agreement on the distribution of S and construction profits, which is around 1 year and six months after August 10, 2017; ③ the amount of the Defendant’s loan claims asserted during the pleadings of the instant case is not consistent; ③ It is difficult to deem that there was an intention on the existence of legal relations or the scope of the obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of the transfer of the instant claim, the assignment of the instant claim is null and void as a juristic act by false

Furthermore, a claim asserted by the Defendant as a counterclaim is due to the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and S, and it is difficult to view it as a offset against the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment return claim against the Defendant. Moreover, the assignment of claim between the Defendant and S on March 25, 2019 is transferred as follows.