1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 49,442,197 as well as KRW 49,356,267 as of September 22, 200 to May 31, 2005.

1. In full view of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 regarding the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the non-party Credit Guarantee Fund in obtaining a loan of KRW 45,00,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea on August 11, 1999. The non-party Credit Guarantee Fund that did not pay the above loan was repaid the loan of KRW 49,356,267 on behalf of the defendant under the above credit guarantee agreement on September 22, 2000, and the non-party Credit Guarantee Fund paid the loan of KRW 49,356,267 to the Industrial Bank of Korea on behalf of the defendant under the above credit guarantee agreement. The non-party Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of indemnity under the above credit guarantee agreement with the defendant under the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2005Ga238542, Dec. 22, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "related judgment"), and the related judgment transferred the claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff on December 19, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the same amount as the written order to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the Defendant asserts that the above assignment of claims is invalid since it was not notified of the transfer of claims from the Nonparty Credit Guarantee Fund, it is apparent that the written notice of the transfer of claims (Evidence A4) prepared by the Nonparty Credit Guarantee Fund was attached to the written application for modification of the purport of claims and the cause of claims as of December 9, 2015 and reached the Defendant on December 15, 2015, and thus, the Defendant cannot deny the validity of the above transfer of claims on the ground that there is no notification of transfer

B. Although the Defendant asserts that the above claim for indemnity was extinguished by the statute of limitations, the fact that the judgment related to the time limit for the above claim for indemnity became final and conclusive on December 27, 2005 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 13, 2015, which was before the lapse of 10 years thereafter, is apparent in the record, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the said claim for indemnity expired by the statute of limitations.

C. The defendant's lawsuit related to the judgment is illegal and effective by public notice.