1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), and the defendant is a national of the Republic of Korea.

B. On June 14, 2012, the Defendant prepared and rendered a loan certificate stating that “The Defendant borrowed 150,000 bills in the People’s Republic of China (the capital) from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff will repay the said money to the Plaintiff by June 15, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

C. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff was the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

Around September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff, notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff, as to the plaintiff's claim, sought reimbursement of KRW 27,478,50,00 from the loan claim stated in the loan certificate of this case to the defendant to the legalization of the Republic of Korea. However, as seen above, the plaintiff transferred not only the above claim amounting to KRW 25,056,00 among the above claim after the decision of the court of first instance was rendered, but also the remaining claim was extinguished by the statute of limitations for the reasons as examined in the following 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserts that (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the cause of the claim should be repaid by the Defendant, since the Plaintiff acquired the claim KRW 25,056,00 from the Plaintiff.

(B) As to this, the Defendant, around 2009, operated the company as not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s partnership in China, and had finished the business at the end of 2013, and there was no money transaction with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot have a claim against the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.