1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2011, C entered into a contract with C to transfer KRW 600,000,000 (hereinafter “instant claim”) out of C’s claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

Things C notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant claim by content-certified mail on March 23, 2011, but the notification was not delivered to the Defendant.

(1) On April 1, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return, etc. of the guaranteed debt, which seeks the return, etc. of investment profits from the Quarrying development project, including D 22,296 square meters of land and fields, in Incheon Reinforcement-gun of Construction (Seoul District Court 201Gahap5208), and on August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the provisional disposition and provisional disposition cases in Incheon Reinforcement-gun.

2. The Plaintiff prepared a power of delegation (No. 2-1 and No. 2-1, hereinafter “the instant power of delegation”) that delegates “all agreed matters to be agreed upon in accordance with the Defendant and the trial (unlawful Enrichment and Compensation for Damages). The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, on March 13, 2012, delegated the Defendant with the power to notify the transfer of the instant claim, so the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant claim on behalf of C.

“The content-certified mail sent along with the instant power of attorney,” and the content-certified mail sent to the Defendant around that time. B. (i) the progress of the lawsuit between C and the Defendant, C, and on June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff.

1. The authority to delegate the cancellation of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of D by Incheon Strengthening-gun;

2. Although civil litigation (201Gahap5208) and agreed matters with the Defendant were delegated to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the Plaintiff’s promise was disqualified in entirety.

On August 15, 2012, “a content-certified mail” sent each content-certified mail to the effect that “ although the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on March 22, 2011, the assignment of claims was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the said contract,” and each of the above content-certified mail sent to the Defendant at the time of the dispatch thereof.