1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,213,373 and KRW 30,363,94 among them, per annum from December 20, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul Co., Ltd.: (a) borrowed general loan with a loan of KRW 80 million to the defendant on April 23, 2007; (b) interest rate shall apply; (c) interest rate for delay shall apply; (d) interest rate for delay shall be 13.7% per annum; and (e) interest rate for delay shall be 13.7% per annum on the application for change of the cause of claim shall be deemed as clerical error; (e) loan was made by the method of full repayment on the expiration date of the loan; (e) the corporation transferred the above loan claim to the plaintiff on May 16, 2019 and notified the defendant of the assignment of the credit on May 29, 201; (e) interest rate of KRW 30,364, interest rate of KRW 194; and (e) interest rate of KRW 13.394,4939,4394,294,39439.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that it is unlawful since the defendant did not notify the transferor of the above transfer.

The notification of the transfer of claims shall take effect when the transferor notifies the debtor that he/she has transferred his/her claim to the transferee and such notification reaches the debtor.

Here, the arrival refers to a situation in which an obligor has been placed in an objective state with which the obligor can know the content of the notification under social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). In addition, in a case where the assignee of an obligation withdraws the notice of the assignment of obligation in the name of the transferor from the pleading of a claim for transfer money which was raised against the obligor by means of evidence, the obligor may be aware of the fact of the assignment of obligation, which is the content of the documentary evidence, by means of the display of