1. On April 2017, the Defendant jointly and severally with B, C, and D about KRW 151,121,497 and KRW 44,430,280 among them to the Plaintiff.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff, the "debtor" for the plaintiff, the "debtor" for the whole pleadings. [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion (1) is asserted that the defendant was not notified of the assignment of claims of this case. Thus, the notice of the assignment of claims is without requiring a special form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da2627, Apr. 11, 2000). It is presumed that the delivery of the content-certified mail was made by the time of delivery, unless there are special circumstances such as the return of claims, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da43490, Feb. 13, 2004). According to the Gap evidence No. 6 and the whole arguments, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff was entrusted with the authority to transfer the claims of this case as the creditor, Seoul Guarantee Co., Ltd., and that the notice of the transfer of claims of this case reached the defendant's delivery of each of the contents of the claims of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) In addition, the Defendant asserts that each of the instant loans claim had already expired due to the completion of prescription, and according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the new card filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant and filed a favorable judgment against the Defendant on December 22, 2010, which became final and conclusive on January 13, 201, and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.