1. The plaintiff's rehabilitation claim B against the corporation corporation according to the changed claim in exchange at the trial. The plaintiff's rehabilitation claim is about 20,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name (new bank D; hereinafter “instant Plaintiff’s account”) to B’s account.

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against B, seeking a loan corresponding to the above remittance amount and the compensation for delay thereof. Since the judgment of the first instance, on May 28, 2014, the rehabilitation procedure for B (Seoul Central District Court 2014 Ma103, hereinafter “C”) was initiated on May 28, 2014, which was pending in the appellate trial, and the Defendant, at the time of rehabilitation, for whom the representative director of the debtor was the debtor at the time of rehabilitation was not appointed, was the legal administrator, and the Defendant taken over the instant lawsuit.

C. The Plaintiff reported the above loan principal amounting to KRW 20 million as a rehabilitation claim against the rehabilitation debtor, and the Defendant denied the entire rehabilitation claim of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to the Defendant, who is the taking-off of the lawsuit of this case, to the trial court for the confirmation of rehabilitation claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On November 30, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties sought to determine the amount of KRW 20 million as the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against the rehabilitation obligor, as it lent KRW 20 million to the rehabilitation obligor upon the request of the directors of the rehabilitation obligor E.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s account of this case was managed by F at the time of the rehabilitation debtor’s transfer of KRW 20 million to the rehabilitation debtor, and the Plaintiff merely lent the name to F, and thus, it is not the subject of the above loan.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2, the rehabilitation obligor No. 34 (from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201).