1. The Changwon District Court, through the Changwon District Court, No. 2017Hu474, a gold loan case between D Co. and the Defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) fact of recognition 1) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”);

(2) On September 13, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Defendant for a loan order in the Changwon District Court 2017Da474, the Changwon District Court 2017, and the said court concluded an asset acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff on September 13, 2018, with a view to selling a large number of claims, such as a bond, based on the said payment order, to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2017 at the rate of 25% per annum from February 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.

3) The Plaintiff was delegated with the authority of the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the assignment of claims in accordance with the determination of the above contract for the sale of claims, and did not deliver the notification of the assignment of claims by means of content-certified mail to the Defendant on December 13, 2018. (4) The Plaintiff applied to the above court junior administrative officer, etc. for the grant of the succession execution clause for compulsory execution against the Defendant, but the succession execution clause is not granted on the ground that the notification of the assignment

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, regarding the order for payment of loans in the above court No. 2017 tea474 between the defendant and D, the above court administrative officer, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of D for compulsory execution against the defendant.

2. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant is asserting that the obligation was extinguished by returning the relevant vehicle to the company on March 2017, 2017 due to the failure to pay the installment for the vehicle borrowed from D, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion in view of the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, and that D had contact with the Defendant demanding the Defendant to continue to pay the obligation by August 2018, where the instant claim was transferred

3. Conclusion.