1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff

The successor's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 1996, Korea Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Korea Mutual Savings Bank”) provided loans to the Defendant at the interest rate of KRW 30 million per annum 16.5% (the nine day of each month on the payment date of interest), interest rate of KRW 20% per annum, and repayment date as of April 9, 2001.

B. Since then, the Defendant lost the benefit of time, and the Korea Mutual Savings Bank, through voluntary auction of construction machinery, only the interest claim of KRW 30,360,931 exists after receiving payment of all principal and interest.

C. On July 22, 2005, Korea-Japan Mutual Savings Bank transferred its claim against the Defendant to Solomon Savings Bank. On December 30, 201, Solomon Savings Bank transferred its claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 30, 201, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim around that time.

On June 3, 2016, the judgment of the first instance court of this case rendered on June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the claim of KRW 25,187,880, excluding KRW 5,173,051, which was repaid out of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff notified

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (1) filed a claim attachment and collection order with Busan District Court 2012TTB2, Busan District Court 27522, and the Defendant sought directly from the Plaintiff on or around December 14, 2012. At the time, the Plaintiff instructed the Defendant in detail as to the fact that the first instance court was conducted by public notice.

In addition, around January 15, 2013 and October 23, 2014, the plaintiff was contacted with the defendant, and the plaintiff was also informed of the reduction and exemption agreement.

Ultimately, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that his deposit was seized at that time and that KRW 5,173,051 was collected from the seized deposit, and thus, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered around December 14, 2012 and that the judgment was served by public notice.