(However, on September 28, 2005, the defendant's assertion against the defendant is "the plaintiff" and "debtor". 2. The defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case has expired, and the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim due to the lack of legitimate notification of the assignment of the claim. However, in full view of the contents and the whole purport of each of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 3, the plaintiff taken over the claim for the indemnity against the defendant from the Credit Guarantee Fund, and the lawsuit for the claim for indemnity (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Da49359) that the Credit Guarantee Fund raised against the plaintiff was sentenced to the same contents as the disposition on September 28, 2005 and confirmed on December 6, 2005. The case was filed on September 23, 2015, which was ten years prior to the expiration of the prescription period of the judgment claim, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription has not expired, and the notification of this case was lawfully delivered by the defendant's complaint.