The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 1,990,106 as well as to this.

A. On April 15, 2002, the Ulsan District Credit Union loaned 2 million won to the Defendant on April 15, 2002, at the maturity of payment on February 15, 2003, at the rate of 30% per annum, and at the rate of 36% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On June 12, 2003, Ulsan District Court Decision 2003Hahap13 decided on June 12, 2003, and the plaintiff was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

C. On July 24, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and on September 2, 2008, sent the notice of the assignment to the Defendant by content-certified mail. D.

The remaining principal as of February 15, 2003 is KRW 1,990,106, which is the due date for the repayment of the loan claim of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,990,106 of the loan principal of this case and delay damages calculated at the rate of 36% per annum from February 16, 2003 to the day of full payment, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that around 2002, the defendant borrowed 2 million won from an individual credit service provider, but did not have obtained a loan from the Nam-gu Credit Union, and that the above individual credit service provider paid all the principal and interest of the loan.

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant borrowed the loan of this case from the South U.S. P. credit union (the above facts of loan can be recognized in light of the fact that the loan of this case was made with an agreement on loan transaction under the name of the defendant, and that the defendant appears to have signed and sealed the above agreement on loan transaction). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid the loan of this case to the South U.S. P. credit union or the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.