1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) from June 4, 2009, 141,664,137 won and 77,523,518 won among them.

1. On May 17, 201 and July 19, 2011, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into each loan contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) with a loan amount of KRW 200 million and KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant loan contract”); Defendant Company lost its profits due to delayed payment of the principal and interest of the loan as provided for in the instant loan contract; E Co., Ltd. received the claim against Defendant Co., Ltd. under the instant loan contract, and filed a lawsuit for acquisition of the loan (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da231457) against the Defendant Company. On November 27, 2009, “Defendant Co., Ltd. is deemed to have received the claim against the Defendant Company for acquisition of the loan amount (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da231457) or to have received the payment of the loan amount with KRW 141,674 and KRW 7523,518, 2019.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company filed a lawsuit again for the extension of prescription against the plaintiff within the scope of the aforementioned final judgment amount.

have the obligation to pay the money set forth in the subsection.

In this regard, the defendant company asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim is improper because it did not directly conclude the loan contract of this case.

However, in the lawsuit of this case filed for the extension of the time period for the claim for the amount of the assignee fee which has become final and conclusive by the existing final and conclusive judgment, the defendant company's argument about the existence of the assignee fee claim as above goes against the res judicata of the previous final and conclusive

2. Defendant C.