1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, B, etc. against the Seoul Central District Court No. 2006da1072890, and on January 26, 2006, the above court issued a decision of performance recommendation that “The Defendant jointly and severally with the Korea Asset Management Corporation KRW 35,884,359, and KRW 16,943,855, as to KRW 18% per annum from January 11, 2006 to the date of full payment,” and the above decision of performance recommendation was finalized on February 15, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (b)

On September 18, 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the amount of money transferred by the decision on the instant performance recommendation, and on January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the extension of extinctive prescription.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum from January 11, 2006 to the date of full payment with respect to the remaining KRW 19,047,411 and its KRW 12,904,046, excluding the amount that the plaintiff received as partial payment from the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's argument that the defendant did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims from the Korea Asset Management Corporation, which is the transferor, and that the plaintiff's notification of the assignment of claims is invalid, and therefore the plaintiff cannot oppose the defendant on the ground

Unless there are special circumstances, if content-certified mail is sent and returned, it shall be deemed that it was sent to the addressee at that time.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da38322 delivered on February 25, 1997, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Gap evidence Nos. 3, the Korea Asset Management Corporation concluded a contract for acquisition of assets with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's designated person, and made a decision for the execution recommendation of this case.