1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 19,694,946 as well as KRW 10,00,000 among them, from June 4, 2005 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 1998, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to repay the principal and interest of a national bank to the national bank when B obtained a loan by setting as 17% per annum of interest rate, 20% per annum of delay compensation, and 20% per annum of interest rate, and March 14, 2001 of the expiration date of the loan.

B. On November 4, 2004, the Korean National Bank concluded an asset transfer agreement with Solomon Mutual Savings Bank and transferred the claim against the defendant who is a joint and several surety B and the defendant, and notified the transfer of the claim to B on January 13, 2005.

C. The Defendant and B lost the benefit of time by delaying payment of the principal of the loan and interest thereon on June 3, 2005 while continuing the said loan transaction. D.

On June 17, 2005, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank applied for a payment order against the Defendant and B as Seoul Central District Court 2005 tea3365, and the part against the Defendant was submitted to the litigation proceedings on the grounds of impossibility of delivery. On March 14, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan35317, which was proceeding by public notice, ruled on March 14, 2006 that "the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff ( Solomon Mutual Savings Bank) 19,694,946 and its 10,000,00 won with 19% interest per annum from June 4, 2005 to the day of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 1, 2006.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (e)

On the other hand, on April 26, 201, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank concluded an asset sales contract with the Plaintiff and transferred the claim against the Defendant who is a joint and several surety, and notified B of the assignment of the claim.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Evidence No. 5-1, 2, A, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, the party against whom the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has been rendered is against the other party to the previous suit.