(a) As regards KRW 112,740,00 among them, from September 5, 2014.

A. On November 29, 2006, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant for general household loans (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant as a juristic person engaged in financial business, etc., and concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant on November 29, 2006, and set the interest rate changed according to the changes in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the financial circumstances to lend the Defendant each by setting the following rates: (a) the principal amount of KRW 112,740,112 on March 12, 2012; (b) the date of final repayment; and (c) when the principal and interest are not repaid within the fixed period, the interest shall be forfeited; and (d)

12,740,00 won per annum of 15% per annum of 112,740,00 won per annum of December 19, 2011, 15% per annum of 45,914,523 won per annum of 158,654,523 won per annum of 539,320 won per annum of December 19, 2011.

B. Under the instant loan agreement, the Defendant’s principal and interest and legal expenses (hereinafter “the principal and interest, etc.”) payable to the Plaintiff as of September 4, 2014 as of September 4, 2014 are as follows.

C. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred all of the above claims against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the scope of duties under Article 30 of the Act on the Structural Improvement of Agricultural Cooperatives. On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the notice of transfer to the Defendant, and the said notice was delivered to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor totaling KRW 159,281,700 (=158,654,523627,177) and damages for delay pursuant to the loan agreement of this case, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The loan agreement of this case is the same as that of Daedong Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Daedong Comprehensive Construction”).

2) The sales contract between the Defendant and the apartment sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

set time limit.