1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 13, 2016, in order to secure the obligation of promissory notes against the Plaintiff, a company future settlement (hereinafter referred to as “stock company,” among its trade names) transferred to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2009, the balance of service claims (around 2.46 billion won, additional tax) based on the maintenance and improvement project service contract signed by the Plaintiff on December 31, 2009.

On September 27, 2016, the Development Bank Co., Ltd. issued a notice of assignment of claims to the defendant and received the seal of the defendant in the payee column.

The amount of value-added tax in arrears was in arrears, and the Republic of Korea (U.S.) seized the amount of 114,513,150 won among the sales claims against the defendant of the A.S. In the case of the A.S. Bank of Korea, the notice of attachment reached the defendant on October 19, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff, and paid only the remainder except the amount seized.

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 114,513,150 to the Republic of Korea seized money.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-1-3 evidence, Eul-2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the photographs attached to Kakao Stockholm messages received on September 30, 2016 by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant objectively proves that he received the notice of assignment of claims prior to the seizure of claims in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, it can be deemed that there was a notification with the fixed date under Article 450 of

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 14,513,150 won in the balance of service cost.

3. Where a double assignment of claims exists, only the assignee who has given a notice by the certificate with a fixed date shall be a legitimate obligee by the takeover of claims, and the obligor shall be liable for the performance of obligations only to the obligee, and as a result, there shall be no obligation for the performance of obligations to the assignee of claims with the notice and consent, which

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2697 Decided January 31, 1972 and Supreme Court Decision 28 June 28, 2013