1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 62,783,741 and KRW 21,324,248 from June 4, 2004 to October 31, 2010.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 21, 1995, the Dongyang-saym Co., Ltd. loaned 100 million won to Defendant A at the overdue interest rate of 29% under the joint and several sureties of Defendant B.

B. On May 13, 2005, the court rendered a judgment that "the defendant jointly and severally pays to the plaintiff 62,783,741 won and 21,324,248 won with interest of 29% per annum from June 4, 2004 to the date of full payment" and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The claim under the above judgment is a claim for the judgment of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the instant judgment claim from the Social Co., Ltd., which took place, and completed the notification of the transfer.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay 62,783,741 won and 21,324,248 won to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case, with 29% per annum from June 4, 2004 to October 31, 2010, and with 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that there was no notification of the transfer from the Social Co., Ltd. that took place on the instant judgment amount, but according to Gap evidence No. 2-1, the Plaintiff’s notification of the transfer of the instant judgment amount can be acknowledged as delegated by the Plaintiff from the Social Co., Ltd. that took place, and as long as a duplicate of the complaint containing the Plaintiff’s notification of the transfer of the instant judgment amount from the Social Co., Ltd. that took place, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is with merit.