1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a claim attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to KRW 33,00,000,000, based on the authentic copy of the judgment with executory power in the case of the purchase price of goods against Nonparty Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 201Gau3350, Aug. 26, 2015 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Branch Decision 201Da3350).

B. On November 18, 2015, the assignment order of this case was served on Hongjin Trade, and on August 31, 2015, respectively, to the Defendant, and became final and conclusive on November 26, 2015.

C. As of January 27, 2011, 31,956,00 won claim for the payment of the purchase price against the Defendant of the Hongjin Trade.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 4, obvious facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 31,956,000 and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Prior to the gist of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant assignment order was entirely extinguished on August 31, 2015, on the ground that the instant claim was entirely entirely extinguished, following the set-off disposition around January 27, 2011 by Nonparty I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”). As such, the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it was entirely received was groundless.

B. Determination 1) Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 (the plaintiff is disputing the authenticity of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3). However, in light of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the stamp image affixed to Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 is based on the seals of Shin Jin-jin trade. Thus, the authenticity of each of the above documents is presumed to have been established, and there is no other evidence to reverse it.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts, each entry may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleading to the statement, the Seoul High Court and the defendant on January 27, 2011.