1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 520,415,026 as well as KRW 212,371,881 from October 1, 2008 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2009, the lawsuit filed by the Korea Asset Management Corporation against the Defendant that “the Defendant shall pay to the Korea Asset Management Corporation the amount of KRW 520,415,026 and KRW 212,371,81, whichever is less than 19% per annum from October 1, 2008 to the date of full payment” was sentenced to a judgment (the Seoul Central District Court 2009No. 551, hereinafter “final judgment of this case”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 16, 2009.

B. On August 28, 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation (D Co., Ltd. at the time of the transfer of bonds, but around December 2017, changed its trade name to C Co., Ltd.

Around October 8, 2012, a claim under the final judgment of the instant case was transferred to “C” without distinguishing before and after the change of the trade name, and the Defendant was notified of the transfer of the claim by mail proving the content thereof, and C again delivered the claim to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2019, and around September 18, 2019, C transferred the claim to the Defendant and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim by mail proving the content thereof.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from October 1, 2008 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, who is a legitimate transferee of the claim pursuant to the judgment of this case, to the plaintiff, who is a legitimate transferee of the claim pursuant to the judgment of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the notice of transfer of claim was not given, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the transfer of claim does not have effect since it was not notified of the transfer of claim pursuant to the final judgment of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, if the mail proving the content was sent and not returned, it was served around that time.

shall be deemed to be.