1. A transfer contract concluded on November 7, 201 between B and the Defendant regarding the claims indicated in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with B for a payment order claiming for dump transport expenses of KRW 81,322,000 and delayed payment damages against B on June 201, when he/she was not paid dump transport expenses for June 201 and July 201 from B (hereinafter “B”), and the payment order was issued as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201 tea8296 on November 4, 201, and it became final and conclusive on November 23, 2011. The transport expenses claim remaining as at the present dump transport expenses are KRW 42,66,250.

B. Meanwhile, B had a claim listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter in this case’s claim) against Pream case. On November 7, 2011, B transferred the instant claim to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on the same day, and the Defendant received KRW 85,332,500 from Pream case around December 201.

C. At the time of the assignment of the instant claim, B was in excess of the obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the transfer of the instant claim to the defendant under excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors including the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant set up 72 million won to B with interest rate of 3% per month, and properly acquired the claim of this case from B in relation to the repayment of the above loan claim, the defendant asserts that the assignment of the claim of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, or that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

B. (1) Determination is that a creditor’s claim for the repayment of an obligation does not interfere with the obligee’s exercise of his/her right as a natural matter, on the ground that there exist other creditors, and the obligor cannot refuse the performance of an obligation on the ground that there are other creditors as well as other creditors.