1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, Eul may recognize the fact that on January 5, 2006, the defendant (the trade name at the time was changed to "one-day liquor seller of limited liability company" and then changed to "the central liquor of limited liability company" on July 13, 2007 and was changed to the same trade name as at April 13, 2010) lent KRW 50 million to the defendant (hereinafter "loan Claim"), and Eul transferred the Loan Claim against the defendant to the plaintiff on August 20, 208, and notified the defendant of the transfer by content-certified mail to the defendant on April 27, 2012.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The entire amount of the instant loan claims, which are already subject to transfer prior to the notification of the assignment of claims in summary of Defendant’s defense, is extinguished by repayment or exemption, and thus, can be asserted against the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 451(2) of the Civil Act, if the transferor merely made a notification of transfer, the obligor may set up against the assignee any defense that all or part of the claim was extinguished due to repayment or any other reason prior to the notification of transfer. The obligor may assert that all the assignee was extinguished prior to the notification of transfer by the transferor. 2 and 3. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 451(2) of the Civil Act, B, the transferor, according to the purport of the whole arguments and evidence No. 2 and 3, 2009, the transferor, a limited liability company (the central liquor at the time), prepared and delivered a written confirmation to the Defendant on Oct. 19, 2009, stating that “the principal was completely arranged for any claim against the central liquor.” Moreover, the Changwon District Court 2011No280755, which was brought by the Defendant against B around 2011.