1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The scope of this Court’s trial at the first instance trial against the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought the payment of each takeover as indicated below, and the court of the first instance accepted the claim against the Seoul Central Agricultural Cooperative’s claim (No. 2) among them, and dismissed the claim against the social claim (No. 1) brought against the Republic of Korea.

In this regard, since only the plaintiff appealed against the rejection part of the claim among the judgment of the first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for social claims (hereinafter referred to as "claim for Social Claims"), which have been raised by Korea (hereinafter referred to as "Korean Social Claims").

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant traded with Korea Communications Co., Ltd. (Korean Social Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Korea Social Co., Ltd.”) and bears its lease obligations. Our Social Co., Ltd. transferred the above claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant upon delegation of the notification of transfer.

The sum of principal and interest remaining as of March 28, 2016 is KRW 41,468,850 (principal KRW 28,009,169, KRW 169, KRW 13,459,681). Since the overdue interest rate determined by the Plaintiff is 17% per annum, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages for the principal amounting to KRW 41,468,850 and the principal amounting to KRW 28,09,169, KRW 169.

B. As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, each evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, and 8 is indicated.

However, Gap evidence No. 1 is a statement of principal and interest prepared by the plaintiff to manage the claims, and Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 is a certificate of assignment of claims and notice of transfer, and Gap evidence No. 6 is merely a copy of the internal electronic data of our society, and it is insufficient as evidence to acknowledge that the claim of this case occurred against the defendant.

The evidence No. 5 is the Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Kadan9087 against the United States of America.