1. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan391090 decided on loans between the Bank and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 18, 2010, our Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) was sentenced to a favorable judgment against the Defendant, etc. in the case of loans rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2009Da391090, and the said judgment was finalized on March 11, 2010.

B. On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff (formerly: Tynman Loan Co., Ltd.) acquired the claim against the Defendant of the Bank from the Korean bank against the Defendant of the Bank.

C. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by our bank, and sent the notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant by content-certified mail, but did not serve the notice in an addressee’s unknown manner.

The Plaintiff expressed his intent to substitute the assignment notification to the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap 2, 3, and 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan391090 between the bank and the defendant should be granted to the plaintiff who is the successor of the bank for compulsory execution against the defendant by the junior administrative officer of the Seoul Central District Court.

As to this, the defendant asserts that even if a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant, it cannot be substituted by the notification of the transfer of claim, so the notification of the transfer of claim becomes effective upon arrival of the debtor, and the arrival here refers to the situation in which the other party is acknowledged to have been placed in an objective state through which the other party can be aware of the content of the notification under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57, Apr. 15, 2010), and the notification of the transfer of claim was made upon delivery to the defendant by the duplicate of the complaint of this case where the contents of the notification of the transfer of claim are stated.

3. Conclusion