1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited, except for the following modifications or additions.

▣ 제1심판결문 ‘1. 기초사실’란에 기재된 ‘피고’를 모두 ‘B 주식회사’로 수정 ▣ 제1심판결문 2쪽 아래에서 2행의 ‘위 채권압류 및 전부명령은’ 뒤에 ‘2017. 9. 18. 제3채무자인 광주광역시에 송달되었고’를 추가 ▣ 제1심판결문 제3쪽 아래에서 10행의 ‘제6, 7, 8, 9호증의 기재’를 '제6~9호증, 을 제4호증의 기재, 이 법원에 현저한 사실'로 수정

2. On the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff asserts that the part regarding KRW 380,000,000 among the instant decision of denial cannot be subject to the exercise of the right to set aside, and thus, it shall be judged in sequence below.

1) Whether the Plaintiff was aware of the suspension status of payment B / The Plaintiff’s assertion is that B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) at the time of the seizure and assignment order of the instant claim.

(2) In general, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that a person who was aware of a company’s current account transaction suspension was in the status of suspension of payment, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, when the debtor issued a bill and then received a suspension of current account transactions from a bank or a clearing house.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da28746 Decided November 8, 2002). B caused the occurrence of a default on payment of promissory notes on September 4, 2017 (the Plaintiff and B drafted the authentic deed of this case on September 6, 2017) as seen earlier. Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff offered a promissory note issued by B on September 12, 2017 but refused payment on the ground of non-transaction.