1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,261,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from June 1, 2018 to March 27, 2019.

There is no dispute between the parties, or according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff supplied cohesion in accordance with the Defendant’s order at the site of the painting construction work site of Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant’s construction work site, and that the amount of goods the Plaintiff was not paid by the Defendant by May 31, 2018 reaches KRW 30,261,000.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,261,00 won with the price of goods and delay damages at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from June 1, 2018 to March 27, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant's obligation was extinguished because he transferred the claim for construction price to the plaintiff from D Co., Ltd. as the contractor to the plaintiff.

It is not reasonable to presume that a debtor transfers other claims to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligations to be transferred by means of a security for repayment of obligations or a repayment, barring special circumstances, barring any dispute between the parties, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished when the assignment of claims is transferred, and the debtor is discharged from liability within the extent of the obligor’s repayment (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4098, May 9, 2013) only when the obligee received the repayment of claims transferred (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4098, May 9, 2013).