1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 52,875,880 and KRW 33,351,265 among them, per annum from April 5, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. The facts of the reasons for the attachment of the judgment on the reasons for the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap 1 through 6.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 52,875,880 and the principal of KRW 33,351,265 with interest rate of KRW 12.3% per annum from April 5, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the notice of assignment of claims in this case was not served to the Defendant at that time, and thus, the validity of the notice of assignment of claims is not recognized.

The notification of the assignment of claims is a notification of concept informing the transferor of the fact that the transferor transferred the claim to the obligor and its notification takes effect upon the arrival of the obligor, and the arrival here means the situation in which the obligor is deemed to have been in an objective state where the content of the notification is known.

Even if it is assumed that the notification of the assignment of claims to the defendant, as the defendant's argument, did not reach the defendant at that time, the plaintiff submitted the notification of the assignment of claims of this case to this court on September 25, 2019, and the defendant's legal representative received the notification of the assignment of claims of this case on October 2, 2019 is obvious in the record. Thus, the above notification of the assignment of claims can be deemed to have been in an objective state where the defendant could know the contents of the notification. Accordingly, the notification of the assignment of claims was made effectively to the defendant.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 4293No455 delivered on December 15, 1960, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendant’s defense that the instant loan claims that the Plaintiff acquired were extinguished five years after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period from May 14, 2014, which was a partial repayment date.

The whole pleadings are written in the evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 1.