1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 224,089,529 as well as KRW 161,832,256 from March 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 6

B. The Defendant asserts that, first of all, the Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because he was unable to receive a lawful notification of the assignment of claims from a single bank, the original creditor. However, this assertion cannot be accepted insofar as the notification of the assignment of claims by September 30, 2013 reaches the Defendant on October 20, 2017 during the pleading of the instant case. 2) The Defendant asserts that the period of the extinctive prescription of each of the instant claims was over five years and terminated.

However, according to the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff applied for the auction of real estate rent on May 27, 2013, based on the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) for each of the instant loans as the secured claim. The Defendant asserted that the auction procedure did not have been served with the notice of the commencement decision or the date of auction in the auction procedure, but the Defendant’s mother received the original copy of the auction decision on November 1, 2013, and even thereafter, the fact that the notice of the date of sale and the notice of the date of distribution, etc. were served lawfully to the Defendant is significant in this court.

From December 9, 2014, a distribution schedule was prepared with the content that distributes dividends of KRW 156,737,445 to the Plaintiff, and this distribution schedule may be recognized as having become final and conclusive on the same day.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of each of the loans claims in this case shall proceed again from the date following the date on which the distribution schedule became final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da89880, Mar. 26, 2009). Since the instant payment order was filed on April 6, 2017, which was five years before the payment order was issued, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted.

2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.