1. The defendant's KRW 50 million and its 14% per annum from January 18, 2007 to February 14, 2007 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 26, 2008, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (the Korea Technology Finance Corporation changed its trade name to the subsequent Korea Technology Finance Corporation) filed a lawsuit against the defendant, etc. for the claim for the amount of indemnity (the Daejeon District Court 2007Da16295) and was awarded a favorable judgment that "the defendants jointly and severally paid to the plaintiff 2,043,341,240 won and 2,026,370,410 won per annum from January 18, 2007 to February 14, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as “pre-trial judgment”). (b)

On September 23, 2015, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transferring the claims by content-certified mail on October 15, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the money mentioned in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff within the scope of the claim for reimbursement that the plaintiff acquired.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that after his resignation from the office of the representative director B of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the defendant has become a joint and several surety with respect to the above company's indemnity obligation by coercion and intimidation of employees of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation.

However, the above argument is contrary to the res judicata of the previous judgment, and it cannot be asserted in the lawsuit of this case. Therefore, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that it is improper to file a claim with an individual even after the legal management of the principal debtor B, which was already completed, but the above reason alone does not constitute a ground to block the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

Finally, the defendant asserts that the debt has been extinguished after the lapse of 10 years of the statute of limitations, but the defendant is "ten years of the joint and several guarantee period".