1. On October 2016, Nonparty C and the Defendant: (a) based on a bond transfer and takeover contract; and (b) KRW 20,000,000 against the Plaintiff’s Defendant.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim first to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proving and supporting the facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 Decided March 13, 1998). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not have received KRW 20,000,00 from Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s obligee, the Plaintiff’s obligee, for the Plaintiff, KRW 20,000,00 from the Plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the Defendant (Evidence B No. 1) alone is insufficient to acknowledge that “C has a claim against the Plaintiff; C has taken over the claim from the Plaintiff; C has received it from the Defendant; C has received it; C has not any other evidence to acknowledge it; C has no other evidence to acknowledge it; and the Defendant has no interest to seek confirmation so long as the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s allegation.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.