2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,914,064 and its payment from December 31, 2015.

A. On October 8, 2014, Nonparty Love Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) entered into a loan transaction agreement with Defendant on a lending limit of KRW 3,00,000 (the first used amount of KRW 3,00,000), interest rate and delay damages rate of KRW 34.9% per annum, 34.9% per annum, loan maturity of October 8, 2017, transaction classification and repayment method, free redemption and repayment method, and lending interest and settlement date of loan interest as of the fifth day of each month.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement” and “the instant loan claim” under the instant loan agreement. B.

On October 8, 2014, Nonparty Company loaned KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant paid only interest until December 30, 2015 under the instant loan agreement, and did not pay the interest thereafter, and lost the benefit of time thereafter. The principal of the loan under the instant loan agreement as of December 30, 2015 is KRW 2,914,064.

On May 4, 2016, Nonparty Company transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, while entering into the instant loan contract, the Defendant consented to transfer, trust, or offer as security all rights of the non-party company to a third party under the instant loan contract between the non-party and the non-party company.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a legitimate transferee of the instant loan claim the interest rate of KRW 2,914,064 of the principal of the instant loan claim and damages for delay at the rate of 34.9% per annum, which is the rate of interest rate or the rate of damages for delay from December 31, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of the final payment of interest under the instant loan contract.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance has different conclusions.