1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with B Co., Ltd. and C for KRW 257,846,893 and KRW 257,769,456 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Technology Finance Corporation (the Korea Technology Finance Corporation: hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Technology Finance Corporation”) provided a credit guarantee for the refund obligation when the non-party company obtains a loan from a financial institution between the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Technology Finance Corporation”).

C. The defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the non-party company's liability for indemnity to be borne by the non-party company in the future.

B. The non-party company caused a credit guarantee accident, and the non-party company paid 260,148,627 won on August 21, 2002 pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement.

The non-party fund filed a lawsuit against the non-party company, C, and the defendant, and received a favorable judgment as described in the Disposition No. 1.

(Seoul Central District Court 2007Kadan176969). The part against the defendant in the above judgment was finalized on September 11, 2007.

C. On September 27, 2012, Nonparty Fund transferred to the Plaintiff the principal of the remainder indemnity amounting to KRW 257,769,456 and incidental claims, and issued a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant by content-certified mail on November 1, 2012.

Around November 1, 2012, the defendant's resident registration was the D Building in Gwangjin-si and 506 Dong 502.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the non-party company and C to pay the plaintiff as the transferee of the claim for indemnity amount to KRW 257,846,893 and delay damages for KRW 257,769,456.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that there is no notification of the assignment of claims, and since the extinctive prescription of claims for reimbursement has expired, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with. 2) First, we examine the argument that the notification of the assignment of claims

It is reasonable to view that a content-certified postal item was served around that time, barring any special circumstance, unless it is sent and otherwise returned. Supreme Court Decision 200.