1. The defendant's 38,610,799 won and 33,706,295 won among them shall be against the plaintiff from April 7, 1992, and 3,979,132 won.

According to the purport of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including the provisional number) and the whole pleadings, the Credit Guarantee Fund shall pay the defendant for credit guarantee, and then the Seoul Central District Court 97Da73979 decided to win the lawsuit on August 29, 1997. For the interruption of extinctive prescription, it shall file a lawsuit for indemnity amounting to 2007da163673 with the same court, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to receive from the above court 38,610,799 won among the plaintiff and 33,706,295 won from April 7, 1992 to 3,979, 1379, 132 won from the following day to February 28, 1993, and the plaintiff shall receive from the above court 200% of the total amount of the credit guarantee fund to the defendant 1 and 33,706,295 won from the following day to 30% of the annual amount of the credit transfer to 130.7.3% of the same.

If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit again for the interruption of extinctive prescription the amount of KRW 38,610,79 and KRW 33,706,295, whichever is applicable, 21% per annum from April 7, 1992 to February 28, 1993; 20% per annum from the next day to July 31, 1993; and 17% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired prior to the lawsuit of Seoul Central District Court 2007Kadan163673, which is the previous lawsuit, and the defendant did not receive the notification of assignment.

However, the Defendant’s claim for the extinction of prescription is without merit in light of the existence of the same court’s decision, and it is rejected against the res judicata effect as it claims a reason prior to the trial date of res judicata of the previous lawsuit.

And as seen earlier, the Credit Guarantee Fund, the transferor of credit, notified the Defendant of the assignment by content-certified mail.