A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendants, C, etc. against the Seoul Central District Court, and the above court rendered a judgment on March 21, 2007, which became final and conclusive as of April 14, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap28626) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as of April 14, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap28626) and ② The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above judgment bonds (hereinafter "the bonds in this case") to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation. Around that time, each of them is acknowledged to have been notified of the assignment of claims in this case to the defendant Eul

B. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay 35,968,49 won, part of the principal and interest of the claim of this case, and 166,631,704 won from October 12, 2005 to January 11, 2006, 80,000 won from November 9, 2005 to February 8, 2006, 104, 790,245 won from January 27, 2006 to April 26, 2006, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 16% from June 3, 2006 to June 206 to June 26, 2006, respectively.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant claim had already expired due to the lapse of the statute of limitations. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants on April 14, 2007 and February 7, 2017, which was within 10 years from April 14, 2007, the final date of the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2006Gahap286266, is apparent in the record, and thus, the said defense by the Defendants, for which the statute of limitations has expired, is groundless.