1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a gold production contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff produced and supplied gold punishment to the Defendant under the instant contract, and the balance of gold production price confirmed by the Defendant around July 25, 2016 is KRW 169,767,292.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 169,767,292 to the Plaintiff according to the instant contract, on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the gold production price claim under the instant contract to the Han Yang Special River Co., Ltd. around July 2016, but was pointed out that the Defendant violated the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims from the Defendant, and the contract for the assignment of claims was cancelled on or around December 23, 2016.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, since the original special lecture Co., Ltd. received the order of seizure and assignment of claims against the plaintiff's defendant as to the claim for the gold production price against the plaintiff, the above claim does not accrue to the plaintiff.

B. According to each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including paper numbers) as to whether the claim for gold production was vested in the Plaintiff, the judgment of the court below: (a) on December 1, 2016, under the original copy of the notarial deed with the executory power against the Plaintiff, the Kisan Special River Co., Ltd. issued an order of seizure and assignment of the claim to the Defendant on December 5, 2016; (b) the order was served to the Defendant on December 1, 2016, under the order of seizure and assignment of the claim against the Plaintiff, under the Suwon District Court Ansan-do Branch Order No. 20169, Jun. 1, 2016; (c) it is recognized that the said order was finalized on February 1, 2017; and (d) it is difficult to view that the claim for gold production against the Defendant belongs to the Plaintiff as the claim for non-assignment agreement is transferred by the assignment order, and there is no evidence to find otherwise.

3. Conclusion.