1. The defendant shall pay 120,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 15, 1998 to the day of full payment.

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, C shall pay to the defendant on December 15, 1998 at an interest rate of 20 million won per annum, and C shall transfer the above loan claim to the plaintiff on April 27, 2017, and send the above transfer claim to the defendant on May 1, 2017, and deliver it to the defendant by mail and deliver it to the defendant on May 1, 2017. Thus, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of money calculated by the rate of 12 million won per annum from December 15, 1998 to the day of complete payment.

2. The defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the assignment of claims based on the claim that the Plaintiff did not have any claim against C or extinguished by prescription is null and void. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim against C was false, and even if the claim has expired by prescription, the obligor may waive the benefits of prescription and recognize the obligation, and in the case of the transfer of claims, the transfer of claims takes effect only by the establishment of the transferor’s claim against the obligor and the conclusion of the transfer contract, and the existence of a claim against the transferor is irrelevant to the

B. Although the Defendant asserts that the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and C is for the collection of claims against the Defendant and is a litigation trust, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

C. The Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations has expired against C. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the Defendant acknowledged the fact of borrowing on March 5, 2008 to C on December 15, 1998, and recognized the fact that he prepared a certificate of borrowing with the intent to repay by December 31, 2008, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired prior to the lapse of the statute of limitations is groundless.

Since the defendant returned the content-certified mail recorded in the above notification of assignment of claims because it does not comply with the Civil Act, it shall not have the effect of notification of assignment of claims.