1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Judgment on the Grounds of Claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the testimony of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers), and witness G of the trial party, the defendant was provided with alcoholic beverages equivalent to the corresponding amount indicated in the column for alcoholic beverage price for "E" or "F" in the name of "E" or "F" on each corresponding date listed in the attached Table of Liquor Price List. The total amount of alcoholic beverage price was 100,760,000, and C transferred credit payment claim amounting to the plaintiff on October 8, 2013, equivalent to the above 10,760,000 won, which he/she had against the defendant (hereinafter "credit payment claim of this case"). On the 10th of the same month, the defendant can be acknowledged that he/she notified the defendant of the transfer of credit payment claim of this case.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 100,760,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff who acquired the credit payment claim of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant alleged that the takeover of credit payment claim from C is solely for litigation and thus null and void because it constitutes a trust of lawsuit. However, as alleged by the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the acquisition of the plaintiff's credit was conducted mainly for litigation as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The Defendant’s defense as to whether the statute of limitations has expired is a defense that the credit payment claim of this case expired by the statute of limitations. Thus, the credit payment claim of this case constitutes “food service charge claim of restaurant” under Article 164 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act and the statute of limitations has been one year. It is apparent that the period of the statute of limitations has lapsed one year after the date of each occurrence of the credit payment claim of this case prior to October 10, 2013, the date of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the credit payment claim of this case is deemed to have expired by the statute of limitations.