1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 30,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 29, 2015 to September 10, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2014, the Defendant’s registration of creation of a mortgage was completed with respect to KRW 360,000,000,000 with respect to the size of 7071 square meters, which was owned by the Defendant’s wife on May 27, 2014, with respect to KRW 7071 square meters, which was owned by the Defendant’s wife, and the establishment of a mortgage was registered as the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the instant collateral security”). B.

On June 3, 2014, between the Defendant and the non-party company, the non-party company provided the land owned by the non-party company to the Plaintiff as collateral, received the transfer of the steel, sold the steel and raised KRW 300 million. Among them, the non-party company agreed that KRW 100 million should be used by the non-party company, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

On June 5, 2014, Nonparty Company remitted each of the KRW 20 million to B’s account, KRW 20 million on June 5, 2014, KRW 20 million on June 5, 2014, and KRW 10 million on June 19, 2014.

The non-party company owes to the Plaintiff the obligation of KRW 276,58,000,00,000,000,000. On October 8, 2014, the non-party company transferred the Defendant’s “the obligation to obtain security” to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the assignment of the obligation.

E. Nonparty Company failed to perform its duty to raise funds under the instant agreement, and the Defendant cancelled the instant collateral security registration on July 8, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul No. 1, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 50 million against the defendant who was transferred from the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff first examines whether the non-party company's claims against the defendant exist.

1. The fact that the non-party company remitted KRW 20 million to the account in June 5, 2014 as seen earlier, and the non-party company remitted KRW 20 million to the account in June 5, 2014. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the above KRW 20 million was paid to D upon the request of the non-party company on June 5, 2014.