1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 52,450,730 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

A. The indication of the claim (1) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) gave the Defendant Company a loan of KRW 280 million to the Defendant Company, and at the time Defendant D was jointly and severally guaranteed.

(2) The above loan obligations were transferred to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the F, and the Plaintiff in succession, and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the Defendant Company by content-certified mail.

(3) On the other hand, as of April 19, 2017, the obligation of the above loans remains in KRW 52,450,730,000 for an attempted interest.

(b) Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The facts of recognition (1) E loaned the Defendant Company KRW 280 million to the Defendant Company, and at the time Defendant D was jointly and severally guaranteed.

(2) The above loan obligations were transferred to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the F, and the Plaintiff in succession, and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the Defendant Company by content-certified mail.

(3) On the other hand, as of April 19, 2017, the obligation of the above loans remains in KRW 52,450,730,000 for an attempted interest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 10, 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant D is a joint and several surety for the instant loans, and Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining loans to the Plaintiff KRW 52,450,730 to the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant D’s assertion (A) asserts that, first of all, Defendant D did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims regarding the instant loan claims, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for setting up against Defendant D.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as return, etc., a content-certified mail is presumed to have been served at the time of delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). The notice of assignment of claims of this case is the defendant by content-certified mail.