A. The facts stated in the reasons for the attachment of the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 255,884,943 (interest rate of KRW 164,520,00 as of January 7, 2016) and KRW 164,520,00 as of the loan principal of KRW 164,520,00 from January 8, 2016 following the above basic date to January 28, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, 13.05% per annum with overdue interest rate of KRW 13.05% per annum, and from the following day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the loan of this case was signed in the form of the loan transaction agreement of this case, and the loan of this case was received by the Korea Assets Trust Corporation, which is the seller, and that the loan of this case is a collective loan of this case, and thus, it is not liable as it is stated as

However, such circumstance alone cannot be said that the Defendant is exempted from the responsibility to pay the principal and interest of this case.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant loan transaction agreement was concluded by the Defendant for the payment of intermediate payment of Bteltel sales contract concluded with Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd., and that the instant loan transaction agreement is terminated if the said sales contract is canceled or cancelled, and that the instant loan transaction agreement becomes effective. The Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. is obligated to pay the principal and interest directly to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above sales contract was cancelled or cancelled, and instead, the defendant et al. filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation or cancellation of the sales contract and the return of the sales price filed by the buyer.