1. On August 10, 2012, as to the indicated claims in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party comprehensive plan for Sungwon Co., Ltd.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute each other; or (b) Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 6 and 7; and (c) the purport of each court’s order to submit financial transaction information as a whole.

On August 10, 2012, when the debt exceeds the obligation, Nonparty 1, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seowon Master Planning Company”) transferred the claim indicated in the attached sheet to the Defendant, which is a general creditor (hereinafter “transfer of claim of this case”), and on August 20, 2012, the notification of the transfer issued by Sungwon Master Planning Company, which was issued by Sungwon Master Planning Company, delivered to Nonparty 1, the debtor of the above claim of this case, Cocarb beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cocarb beverage company”).

B. At the time of the assignment of the instant claim, the Sungwon General Planning Co., Ltd.: (a) was in the state of having no other property other than the instant claim; and (b) reported the closure of business on September 30, 20

C. On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,636,480 to Nonparty B, who retired on July 25, 2012, KRW 7,092,360, to Nonparty C, who retired on July 31, 2012, KRW 6,759,300, to Nonparty D, who retired on the same day, and KRW 6,496,830, to Nonparty D, who retired on the same day.

2. According to the above facts acknowledged in the determination on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, who paid a substitute payment under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act to the employees of the Sungwon General Planning Company, was subrogated to the said employees’ right to claim wages, etc. against the Sungwon General Planning Company under the same Act. Although the date on which the Plaintiff paid a substitute payment to the employees after the assignment of the instant claim, the Plaintiff’s right to claim wages, etc. of the said employees (the date of the most late retirement of the said employees was July 31, 2012) has already been established before the assignment of the instant claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s preserved claim is recognized.

In addition, it is recognized in the above basic facts.