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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. B on November 14, 1995, 310,000,000 won from the vice-public mutual savings and finance company under the Defendant’s joint and several sureties Co., Ltd. with the interest rate of 23% per annum and the due date of repayment on November 14, 200.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

Since then, the instant loan claims were transferred in order to the Korea Reorganization and Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Reorganization and Finance Corporation”), the Korea U.S. Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “S.”), the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Slomon Mutual Savings Bank”), the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Slomon Mutual Savings Bank”), and the Plaintiff. The relevant transferor or the transferee to whom the authority to notify the assignment of the claim was delegated by the transferor was notified to B,

(However, the notice of transfer of the smuggling Mutual Savings Bank has not arrived at B as follows).

On the other hand, on July 23, 2004, the Liquidation Bank filed a lawsuit against B and the Defendant seeking the performance of the obligation of the instant loan with the Gwangju District Court 2004Gahap2160, and on July 23, 2004, the said court rendered a favorable judgment (hereinafter “final judgment in a prior suit”) that “the Defendant jointly and severally paid the amount of 228,940,125 won and 16,972,100 won, whichever is the rate of 29% per annum from December 13, 2001 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “final judgment in a prior suit”), and the said judgment was finalized on August 18, 2004.

As the period of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final judgment of the previous suit was imminent, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B and the Defendant seeking the performance of the obligation of the instant loan under Seoul Central District Court 2013da51196. On June 11, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the claim against B on June 11, 2014, however, regarding the claim against the Defendant, due to the seizure against the Defendant by the (ae.g., Mine District Court 2008TTTTE 7092) against the transferring creditor, the period of extinctive prescription, which is the expiration date of the final judgment of the previous suit.