1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 18, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The Plaintiff’s determination on the Plaintiff’s claim received the claim for the amount of KRW 100 million, which the Nonparty Company owned against the Defendant, from Sethyl Star Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PS”) on September 12, 2014, from the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the transfer on September 12, 2014, and the notification thereof reached the Defendant on September 15, 2014, may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties or as a result of the statement in the evidence A3 through 5.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who is the transferee 10 million won of the above goods price and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 18, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is obviously the next day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant, unless there are other special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the assignment of claims between the plaintiff and the non-party company constitutes a fraudulent act.

On the other hand, the revocation of a fraudulent act can be claimed by means of filing a lawsuit with the court, but can not be asserted by means of an attack and defense in the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393 delivered on July 25, 1995), and the defendant, who is not the creditor of the non-party company, and the third debtor, who is only the non-party company, cannot raise any further defense.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that since the non-party company's other creditors provisionally seized the above claims, the non-party company's other creditors cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

A decision shall be made by means of a notice of assignment of claims with a fixed date and after the arrival of the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure to the third debtor, in respect of the same claim as the transferee of the claim.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994). However, the Plaintiff’s notice of assignment of claims on April 26, 2014.