A. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) received a loan from a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) with the following contents, and Defendant A and B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s loan obligations to a certain extent.

B. On September 26, 2011, a new bank concluded an asset transfer agreement with a limited-liability company specialized in the 12-backed securitization (hereinafter “instant claim”) and sent a notice of the transfer of the claim to the Defendant company by content-certified mail on September 27, 201.

C. Korea’s limited liability company specialized in the 12th securitization filed an application for a voluntary auction with the Seoul Eastern District Court D on the real estate owned by Defendant A based on the instant claim, and received dividends of KRW 475,353,743, Sept. 28, 2012 on the date of distribution.

The dividend was appropriated for the respective repayment of KRW 329,805,146 out of the total amount of KRW 145,548,597 and the remaining principal of KRW 625,374,265, and KRW 329,805,146.

On February 18, 2014, Korea: (a) on February 18, 2014, a limited liability company specialized in the 12nd securitization transferred to the Plaintiff the outstanding loan principal and interest claims among the instant claims; and (b) on March 14, 2014, a notice of transfer of claims was given to the Defendant Company by content-certified mail.

E. As of June 16, 2014, the instant claim remains in total of KRW 295,569,119 as of principal and interest in arrears of KRW 85,901,293, and interest in arrears of KRW 381,470,412.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 (including each number for those with a branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is reasonable to view that a document evidencing content was served around the time of dispatch, barring any special circumstance, unless the document evidencing content was sent and returned.

Supreme Court Decision 200