1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2.(a)

The defendant and C Co., Ltd. were entered into on August 10, 2012 in annexed Form 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s credit (i.e., D boundary stone and braille block packing works from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and performed the said construction works from July 21, 201 to November of the same year.

B. On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the said non-party company and its representative for a payment order seeking payment for the said construction work against the said non-party company and H, the representative of the said court. On November 29, 2012, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the payment order at the rate of KRW 17 million per annum and KRW 20 million per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment. The payment order was finalized on December 21, 2012.

B. (i) On August 10, 2012, the non-party company transferred its assignment to the Defendant of the non-party company (hereinafter “the claim of this case”), and notified the Defendant of the transfer (hereinafter “Shee Construction”) (hereinafter “the assignment contract of this case”), and around that time, the above notification reached Shee Construction.

Shelled construction performed on September 25, 2012 with the obligation of KRW 130,000,000 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assignment of the instant claim by the non-party company in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the assignment of the claim by the non-party company to the Defendant, which is only one of the obligees, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, barring any special circumstance. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the assignment of the claim of this case should be revoked.

B. The non-party company asserting the Defendant did not have any obligation in excess at the time of the instant assignment of claims, and the Defendant had any obligation against the non-party company.