2. The Defendant’s KRW 72,084,860 and KRW 41,122,467 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 41,12,467 on April 9, 2015.

A. On October 17, 2008, Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “one Bank”) lent KRW 110,000,000 to the Defendant.

On the same day, Han Bank concluded a parent-based insurance contract with Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Guarantee Insurance") with the insurance amount of KRW 44,800,000, and the insurance period from October 17, 2008 to October 17, 2038.

B. When the Defendant delayed the obligation to repay the loan, the Han Bank claimed insurance proceeds to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance on May 12, 2010, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid KRW 41,122,467 to the Han Bank on May 28, 2010.

C. On May 31, 2013, Seoul Guarantee Insurance transferred its claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority from Seoul Guarantee Insurance and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim.

As of April 8, 2015, the balance of the above claim is KRW 41,122,467 of the principal and interest KRW 30,962,393 of the interest, and KRW 72,084,860 of the total amount is KRW 72,084,860 of the entrusted bond management rules, which are the Plaintiff’s business regulations, the Plaintiff is obliged to apply 17% per annum to the agreed interest rate of the purchase claim within the limit of the original agreed interest rate.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 4 evidence (including paper numbers), inquiry results on Han Bank Co., Ltd. at the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 72,084,860 and the principal amount of KRW 41,122,467, which is the day following the above calculation base date, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 17% per annum for delay calculated from April 9, 2015 to the day of full payment.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition to cancel this and order the payment of the above money.