1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,705,180 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 12, 2015 to April 1, 2016.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with LMT (hereinafter “ELT”) on the acquisition of the claim for the purchase price of KRW 24,731,850 against the Defendant of LIM.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above bonds acquisition money to the plaintiff.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and LIMT entered into a contract for the transfer and takeover of claims with the effect that they transfer the claim amount of KRW 24,731,850 to the Plaintiff in October 2014, November 12, 2014, and the balance of the goods payment claim amount of KRW 24,731,850 to the Defendant. On February 24, 2015, LIM notified the Defendant of the fact that the notice of the transfer of claims was delivered to the Defendant on February 25, 2015, and the fact that the notice of the transfer of claims was delivered to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the statements in the evidence No. 3, No. 8, and No. 9.

On the other hand, although the defendant recognized that the defendant's obligation to pay the goods to LIM was KRW 24,705,180, the defendant's obligation to pay the goods reaches KRW 24,731,850, the defendant's obligation to pay the goods exceeds the above amount, it is not sufficient to recognize the above by only the descriptions of the evidence No. 2 and No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 24,705,180 and delay damages for the acquisition of the claim.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

A. The Defendant’s defense did not refund the gold punishment produced by the Defendant at the Defendant’s expense, thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 49,428,830 of the gold production cost to the Defendant.

If the Defendant offsets the amount of KRW 24,705,180 against the Defendant’s damage claim equivalent to the amount of the above gold production cost of KRW 49,428,830 against the Defendant’s LMT, the Defendant did not have any obligation to repay to LMT, and is only liable for damages to be paid from LMT, so there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of the claim acquisition.

(b) judgment;