On August 26, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant deposited in Suwon District Court No. 2150 in gold 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around February 2019, the Defendant (the Defendant’s representative director at that time) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff that “the Defendant transfers KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff the goods price claim 200 million that the Defendant owns with respect to a stock company C (hereinafter “C”)” (hereinafter “instant assignment contract”).

B. On June 28, 2019, the Defendant notified C of the purport that the instant assignment contract was null and void.

C. Accordingly, on August 26, 2019, C deposited KRW 67,105,186 under the instant contract for the assignment of claims as of August 26, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) on the ground of the creditor’s relative uncertainty pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act by designating the deposited person as “Plaintiff or Defendant,” as a gold No. 2150 of the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong District District District Court in 2019.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (the defendant was prepared on June 27, 2019, not around February 2019, not around Gap's evidence No. 2, but around Eul's transfer of claims. The representative director of the defendant company was not D, but at the time when the notice of transfer of claims was made on June 27, 2019. However, the defendant's representative director's signing of the defendant's corporate seal which was kept by the former representative director D without permission cannot be acknowledged, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be acknowledged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in relation to the assertion in this part, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's representative director of Suwon and the plaintiff's representative director of Eul were also the same in Suwon District Court 2019. However, the above defendant's assertion was not accepted, and the defendant's party revoked the complaint)'s whole purport

2. The plaintiff alleged that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case belongs to the plaintiff according to the assignment contract of this case. The defendant conspired with D, which was not the representative director of the defendant at the time of the execution of the assignment contract of this case.