1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff’s claim partially accepted (35,650,000 won among the claims of KRW 37,732,063), and the Defendant appealed only for the part of KRW 6 million among them, and the scope of this court’s trial is limited to the part against the Defendant of the judgment of the first instance court that lost the Defendant.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second-class, second-class, and first-class, first-class, and first-class, first-class, and third-class, second-class, and first-class, second-class, and first-class,

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant transferred the defendant's claim 6 million won against D in lieu of the defendant's repayment of the price of the goods to the plaintiff, and thus, the amount equivalent to 6 million won out of the claim for the price of the goods has ceased to exist.

B. The obligor’s transfer of another claim in relation to the repayment of obligation to the obligee is presumed to have been transferred by means of a security for repayment of obligation or a repayment, barring special circumstances. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished when the assignment of claim is made, and it cannot be deemed that the obligor is exempted from liability within the scope of the obligor’s transfer of claim when the obligee receives the repayment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40998 Decided May 9, 2013). The Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 6 million against D, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that D repaid KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff claimed for the amount of unpaid goods on the premise that the Plaintiff paid KRW 400,000). According to the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the Defendant’s transfer of the claim against D to the Plaintiff is presumed to have been transferred as security for debt repayment, barring any special circumstances.