1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Ma16210, hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court No. 2015TNS1620, hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Defendant of the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) on the ground that the authentication of the monetary loan agreement for consumption (No. 2014, No. 4866) on July 17, 2015 (No. 2015, No. 2015, No. 16210, hereinafter “the authentication and collection order”). The instant seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on July 23, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the non-party company sent e-mail that the non-party company proposed that it would transfer its claim to the Defendant to the non-party company KRW 65,727,212, which it holds against the Defendant. As such, at least on August 26, 2014, the non-party company had a claim equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the collection amount and damages for delay equivalent to the above amount.

B. The Defendant alleged that there was a transactional relationship between the non-party company and the non-party company from around 2008 to September 11, 2014, but the de facto transaction was completed on December 2013, and the Defendant did not have any goods to be paid to the non-party company any longer.

On October 19, 2013, the Defendant received a notice of assignment of claims that the non-party company transferred to the Defendant’s non-party A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A