1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 141,838,754 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 3, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff supplied steel materials to the Defendant from May 2016 to September 2017. However, it is acknowledged that the price of the goods not paid by the Defendant is KRW 141,838,754 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”). According to the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 141,838,754 and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant transferred the instant claim KRW 74,965,00 (hereinafter “instant claim”) held by Boenna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Baenna”), as a repayment order for the instant goods price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff recovered the instant claim from Boenna, thereby, should be deducted from the price of the instant goods in proportion to the amount corresponding thereto.

B. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a transfer agreement with the Defendant to transfer the instant claim to the Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2017, and the Defendant is recognized as having given notice to the Plaintiff on Nov. 10, 2017, but it is presumed that the obligor transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff with respect to the repayment of obligation to the obligee, barring special circumstances, is presumed to have transferred the instant claim to the obligee by means of a security or repayment for the repayment of obligation, and it is not deemed to have been substituted for the repayment of obligation. Thus, even if the Defendant transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the instant claim for the payment of obligation was extinguished immediately due to such circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da1371, Sept. 15, 195). Furthermore, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff actually received the payment of the instant claim by the Plaintiff.