A. On May 13, 2005, the non-party-party-based limited liability company specializing in Hemomomo-a securitization (hereinafter referred to as " Hemo-child") acquired claims, such as loans to the defendant, credit card payments, and credit card loans, card loans, and credit card loans, etc. from Chomo-a Bank, LG cards, Samsung Card, National Bank, and KB-backed 3 vehicles, and issued a notice of transfer to the defendant by content-certified mail on June 16, 2005

B. He acquired the claim against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of money (hereinafter “former lawsuit”) against the Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Da5871 Decided July 16, 2008. The same court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 69,516,74 won and 39,456,320 won with 17% interest per annum from November 2, 2007 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against the Defendant from a desired mother, and received delegation of the notification of transfer from a desired mother, and sent a notice of assignment to the Defendant by content-certified mail by May 3, 2018.

The amount of claims against the defendant as of July 11, 2018, calculated by the rate of delay interest reduced to 15% per annum from January 1, 2017, is KRW 140,039,803.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence A1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of the principal and interest remaining 140,039,803 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay reduced by the Plaintiff from July 12, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Although the defendant did not know about the previous lawsuit and argued that the claim acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription, it is obvious in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed within 10 years from the day the judgment in the previous lawsuit was pronounced by public notice, and thus, the defendant's allegation of extinction of prescription

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s conclusion.