1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 1997, Gyeongnam General Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Co., Ltd.”) lent KRW 10 billion to B in the manner of bill discount when entering into a bill transaction agreement with 21% per annum, with respect to the limit of bill transaction with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and compensation rate for delay, and 10 billion won per annum. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed B’s obligation and subsequently declared bankrupt.

B. The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt company (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Corporation”) filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. for the claim for deposit against the defendant et al. on October 10, 2007 with the judgment that the defendant et al. jointly and severally paid KRW 1 billion and delay damages to the plaintiff (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2007.

C. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for reimbursement against B from the trustee in bankruptcy, and the trustee in bankruptcy notified B of the transfer of claim on November 2, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 4-2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim. The guaranteed obligation is identical to the above fact that the plaintiff takes over the claim against B from the trustee in bankruptcy and satisfies the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the claim, unless otherwise expressly stipulated by the parties, if the claim against the principal obligor is transferred. In this case, the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the claim is sufficient if it satisfies the requirements for setting up against the principal obligation, and it is not necessary to separately set up the requirements for setting up against the surety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21509, Sept. 10, 200).