The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below determined that the above assignment of claims cannot be deemed as the primary purpose, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant, who is the wife of C via G upon request by G; (b) the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s claim while disputing the Plaintiff’s claim, not the Plaintiff, thereby denying the Plaintiff’s claim; and (c) the fact that KRW 100 million was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account, etc.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, this part of the appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since the fact-finding of the court below was erroneous that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid a debt to C, or it is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, even if examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it did not err by finding facts against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.