1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 269,383,230 and KRW 58,932,096 among them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2012, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-party bank”) transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the loans principle against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant D.

The particulars of claims as of July 8, 2020 as of July 8, 2020 are as follows:

E

B. The non-party bank entrusted the Plaintiff with the authority to notify the transfer of the claim, and the Plaintiff, on behalf of the non-party bank, notified the Defendant Company on April 25, 2012, and Defendant D of the transfer of the claim by content-certified mail on March 18, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delayed damages at the rate of 25% per annum from July 9, 2020 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) Although Defendant D alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot oppose himself/herself on the ground that he/she was notified of the transfer of the claim, the fact that the transfer was notified by the content-certified mail is not only as seen above, but also, in cases where the claim against the principal debt is transferred due to the nature of the principal debt or accompanied nature, unless otherwise stipulated between the parties, the claim against the guarantor is also transferred, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. In this case, the requirements for setting up the transfer of the claim are satisfied with respect to the transfer of the principal debt, and the requirements for setting up the transfer of the claim do not need to be separately set up against the guaranteed claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21509, Sept. 10, 200), the above assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations has expired, but according to the evidence evidence No. 1, Nonparty bank applied for a payment order against the Defendants to the Seoul Central District Court around 2010 and filed on September 20, 2010.