1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 19, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 14,273,020 (hereinafter “instant loan”) of the loan principal at KRW 24% per annum on the loan name, loan interest, and the representative director C of B at the time of divorce on December 21, 2006 between the Defendant who was the husband and C.

On behalf of the defendant, the defendant entered into a joint and several guarantee contract with respect to the debt of the loan of this case (hereinafter "joint and several guarantee contract of this case").

B. As of January 25, 2007, as of January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Earsen, B and the Defendant for the claim for the instant loan amounting to KRW 14,609,926.

C. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Articles 7(1) and 7(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (Special Cases concerning Requirements for Counter-Backed Securitization) (1) The transfer, trust, or return of claims pursuant to an asset-backed securitization plan may not be asserted against the obligor unless the transferor (including the truster; hereinafter the same shall apply) or transferee (including the trustee; hereinafter the same shall apply) notifies the obligor

Pursuant to this, on May 23, 2016, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor notified the assignment of the above assignment to B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loans to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016, and notified the assignment of claims to B on May 23, 2016. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the Plaintiff is in the status of the obligee’s claim for the instant loans, is without merit.

B. The intervenor succeeding to the gist of the 1st party’s argument regarding the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, and ① the defendant awarded the power of representation to C and concluded the joint and several guarantee contract in this case, and thus, objection is in accordance with the contract