1. The Defendant is 15% per annum with respect to KRW 50,084,016 and KRW 29,168,284 among the Plaintiff, from December 17, 2016 to the date of full payment.

There is no dispute between the parties or in full view of the evidence evidence and the whole purport of the argument between Gap and Eul, the facts in the annexed sheet can be recognized (However, "creditor" is considered as "the plaintiff," and "debtor" as "defendant."

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he did not receive the notification of assignment of claim.

According to Gap evidence No. 3, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff sent a notice of assignment of the instant claim by content-certified mail on May 24, 2016.

If content-certified mail was not sent and returned, it shall be deemed that it was served at that time unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da38322, Feb. 25, 1997; 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the notice of assignment of claims was served to the Defendant around that time, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above content-certified mail was returned.

In addition, the arrival of the notification of the assignment of claims refers to the state in which the obligor was able to recognize the content of the notification in light of social norms, and it does not require the obligor to receive the notification or to know the content of the notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da31281, Nov. 25, 1997; 2010Da57, Apr. 15, 2010; 2010Da77477, Jan. 13, 201). Thus, the notification of the assignment of claims does not require any special method, and if the obligee submitted the notification of the assignment of claims in the document of lawsuit and received it by the obligor, it shall be deemed that the notification of the assignment of claims was made at the time of service.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4293Da4555, Dec. 15, 1960). The same applies to cases where a transferee submitted and delivered a notice of assignment of claims to the obligor by means of a documentary evidence while filing a lawsuit against the obligor for a claim for the amount of money transfer, and as a whole, evidence No. 3 and pleadings