1. The Defendant is jointly and severally with Nonparty B as to KRW 37,093,554 and KRW 11,689,745 among them, from December 7, 2015.

1. The facts stated in the attached Form No. 1, which the plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim in this case, do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 7.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who acquired the first creditor financial institution’s claims, 37,093,554 won in the balance of principal and interest and 11,689,745 won in the principal and interest, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% in accordance with the agreement from December 7, 2015 to the date of full payment.

[Defendant does not have been notified of the transfer of a claim by the Plaintiff and the first financial institution so the claim in this case is unreasonable. However, as seen below, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is acknowledged to have been rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming the transfer of claim with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2006Da5667, and the judgment became final and conclusive. The final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant is res judicata, and the court which examines a new lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription cannot re-examine whether all the requirements for claiming the established right are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da61557, Oct. 28, 2010). As long as it becomes final and conclusive that the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of a claim against the Defendant exists in the judgment in the previous suit, it is unnecessary to further examine whether the notification of the transfer of a claim in this case raised for the interruption of extinctive prescription of such claim is legitimate or not.

2. The defendant's defense is proved to have expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. However, considering the whole purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Kadan5667 and rendered a favorable judgment on March 28, 2006.