1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 73,153,766 and KRW 20,413,354 from July 13, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money set forth in the Disposition No. 1.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that he was not notified of the assignment of the claim of this case on or around June 2005, and that he could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because the period of prescription of commercial claim of five years expired.

B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff acquired the claims listed in the separate sheet against the principal debtor B and the Defendant, a joint guarantor, on May 13, 2005, and notified the principal debtor B of the transfer by way of content-certified mail pursuant to Article 7 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. It can be recognized that the Defendant’s assertion regarding the non-notification of the transfer of claims is without merit. 2) In addition, according to the above evidence, the instant loan claim was established between February 22, 2002 and September 3, 2003, and the maturity period between February 22, 2006 and September 1, 2007, ② the principal debtor obtained the decision to grant immunity on July 28, 2008, and ③ the Plaintiff’s application to grant immunity on July 29, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s application to grant immunity on July 208, 2009.

Any individual rehabilitation procedure for the submission of the list of individual rehabilitation creditors and any other participation in the rehabilitation procedure shall constitute a cause interrupting prescription (Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the interruption of prescription against the principal debtor shall also be effective as against the guarantor.