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 for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant’s assertion, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts the repayment due to the assignment of claims: according to the assignment of claims and the promise signed between the Plaintiff and the buyer, where the buyer does not pay the interest or loses the benefit of time, the sales contract is cancelled and the buyer claims the return of the down payment and the intermediate payment paid by the buyer are transferred to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s obligation was extinguished since the buyer, etc. transferred the down payment and the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff.

However, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that a debtor transfers other claims to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligations by means of a security for repayment of obligations or a method of repayment, and it does not mean that the transfer of claims would substitute for the repayment of obligations. As such, it cannot be deemed that the original claim would be extinguished if the transfer of claims is an assignment of claims, and the obligor is relieved of obligations within the extent of the obligor’s repayment of the transferred claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10603, Mar. 14, 2013). The Defendant

The defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff or the plaintiff transferred the claim was actually repaid by B as the debtor.

B. The Defendant asserted that the amount of the actual intermediate payment was loaned only KRW 358,516,00,00, not KRW 537,774,00 as stipulated in the instant loan agreement. This is more than KRW 376,441,80 as the principal of the loan repaid by the Hanjin Heavy Industries was less than KRW 376,441,80, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff.