1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,628,069 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 2, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff acquired a total amount of claim equivalent to KRW 48,628,069 due to a transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.

2. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not remain the price for the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant transferred each of the claims against the Defendant’s non-party Kim Jong-sung and C&C Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff.

However, barring special circumstances, it is not reasonable to presume that a debtor transfers other claims to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligation by means of a security for the repayment of obligation or a repayment, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in such case, the assignment of claims cannot be deemed to have terminated immediately when the assignment of claims is performed, and the debtor is exempted from liability only when the creditor receives the repayment of claims transferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4098, May 9, 2013). In this case, even in the instant case, it is presumed that each of the claims that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff was performed by the means of a security for the repayment of claims against the Plaintiff or a repayment for the repayment of claims against the Plaintiff, and no evidence or circumstance exists to deem otherwise as a substitute for the repayment of the existing goods payment obligation itself

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the amount equivalent to KRW 48,628,069 claimed by the Plaintiff after the Defendant transferred the right to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is paid by the Defendant or the Defendant’s obligor (SPAC). Accordingly, there is no evidence to deem that the pertinent goods payment claim owned by the Plaintiff was extinguished due to repayment or discharged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant cannot oppose the plaintiff's claim solely on the ground that he transferred his claim to the plaintiff.

The defendant's above defense dispute is justified.