1. On September 1, 2016, private Korea Co., Ltd. deposited with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016-20304, Sept. 1, 2015 55,861

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff is the Defendant Dextrins Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Dextrins”).

(3) As to the Plaintiff’s non-party company, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s non-party company

56,961,551 won (hereinafter “instant claim”) against the advertising expense claim

(2) On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Nonparty Company of the instant assignment of claims with a content certification with a fixed date and reached August 5, 2016.

B. Defendants 1) The instant claim assignment or the power to notify the instant claim assignment does not exist to the Plaintiff. 2) The assignment contract (A5) and the assignment notification (A4) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence are written in blank with the amount of the assignment of claim, the indication of the claim subject to the assignment, and the date of the preparation of the transfer contract. The Plaintiff arbitrarily entered blank in a document that has no effect due to the destruction in the past and then forged it.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the authenticity of a contract for assignment of claims and a notice of assignment of claims is established or not, i.e., the authenticity of a signature affixed on a private document is presumed to have been made by the name holder’s intent, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of a seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. In addition, barring any special circumstances where the authenticity of the entire document is acknowledged, the document may be presumed to have been affixed by the name holder when the entire document was completed, and the document was affixed first when the whole or part of the document was completely completed. As such, there is an exceptional case where evidence, such as reasonable reasons and indirect counter-proof to support the presumption of the authenticity of the document as a completion document is needed (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da4276, Sept. 4, 2014).