1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2007, the Defendant decided to take over an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, 162.65С and 409.98С under the ground (hereinafter “the instant building”) from F, from F, KRW 650 million (the sum of the lease deposit KRW 150 million and the premium KRW 50 million). The Defendant paid KRW 100 million on the date of the contract, intermediate payment KRW 200 million, and the remainder KRW 350 million until July 30, 2007.

B. On August 22, 2007, the Defendant leased the instant building from G to KRW 150 million for lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 20 million for management expenses (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 1 million for management expenses (excluding value-added tax) in the name of wife H and I.

C. On November 5, 2007, G was delivered the instant building on April 24, 2008 on the following grounds: (a) the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da2449 decided November 5, 2007: (b) the lessee did not perform the contractual obligations under the lease agreement on the instant building; (c) the lessee did not receive the rent from the Defendant; and (d) on April 24, 2008, G was handed over the instant building.

On the other hand, C paid the Defendant totaling KRW 40 million from August 2007 to October 2007 with the acquisition and operation funds of the entertainment tavern in this case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion: (a) the Plaintiff lent KRW 440 million to the Defendant from August 2007 to October 2007 with the acquisition and operation funds of the entertainment tavern in this case; (b) on May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff delegated the Plaintiff with the authority to notify the assignment of claims while transferring a loan claim against the Defendant; and (c) on May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of a loan claim; (d) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, KRW 440 million, and its delay damages.