A. Defendant 376,396,396,276 won and its 4,000,000 won.

On May 9, 2008, Defendant Samsan Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsan Capital”) entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (former Mutual Savings Bank), under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant Samsan Capital Construction, A, and B, and obtained loans as listed in the following table. The outstanding amount of the loans as of June 16, 2014 is as listed below: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25324, May 9, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 25358, Jun. 16, 2014>

Around June 30, 201, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for the above loan against Defendant Samsan-Jurggggy (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor”) around June 30, 201, and around that time, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor notified the Defendants of the transfer of the above credit amount of KRW 4,00,00,000 (year 24%) 4,376,396,276,276 won (year 24%) 8,376,396,276 won.

Since then, on October 16, 2014, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor cancelled the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and received again the claim for the loan of this case. At that time, the Plaintiff notified Defendant Samsan-Purg of the assignment of claims.

Defendant Samsan-lurg Loans and Maritime Construction Act: Judgment by means of confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) rendered by public notice (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Defendant A and B: The judgment rendered by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) that the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan from the succeeding intervenor and subsequently transferred the Plaintiff’s claim to the succeeding intervenor during the instant lawsuit, as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants by succeeding intervenor is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.