Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the obligation as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff as the transferee.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that "the defendant did not enter into a securities security loan agreement with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. stated in the grounds for the claim, and even if he/she bears the obligation related to the above contract, the extinctive prescription has already been completed, and there is no fact that the plaintiff has received the notification of the transfer of the claim concerning

Therefore, comprehensively taking into account the following facts: ① the Defendant entered into two guarantee insurance contracts with Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) and received two loans from financial institutions (Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd.), and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid the above insurance money to the Defendant; ② Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. instituted a claim for indemnity against the Defendant for one of the above two indemnity bonds (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Da34270, Apr. 27, 2015), and the payment order was finalized upon filing a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Da34270, Daegu District Court Decision 2008), ③ After which Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.), the judgment became final and conclusive in order to extend the extinctive prescription period of the claim for which the payment order became final and conclusive (Seoul District Court Decision 2005Da342785, Apr. 27, 20105).