A. Our Bank Co., Ltd. extended loans to the Defendant twice as follows:

1) Loan section: Credit loan interest rate of KRW 65 million: August 18, 2010; expiration date of loan: Interest rate of loan on August 18, 201: Fixed interest rate of loan [Article 3 (2) 1 of the Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (For Credit Transactions) at the base rate of less than two years as of the starting date of loan] section 3.3% of loan section: 40 million won for separate loan section: Commencement date of loan section 40 million won: Interest rate of loan on August 18, 2010; Article 3 (2) 2 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for Credit Transactions) at the base rate of COF 24% on the new credit rate of 6 months changed [Article 3 (2) 2 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for Credit Transactions)].

B. The Defendant delayed the payment of the principal and interest of each of the above principal and interest, thereby losing the benefit of time, and on March 11, 2015, the rate of principal and interest and agreed interest is as specified in the attached Form.

C. On September 18, 2012, our bank transferred its claims against the Defendant to the Yonhap Asset Management Co., Ltd., and transferred its claims to the Plaintiff on the same day, and our bank notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on October 2 and 4, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap 2-4 evidence (including a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15.5% per annum from March 12, 2015 to the date of full payment for KRW 78,640,052 in total (i.e., interest of KRW 19,906,651 in total (i.e., interest of KRW 6,613,61 in principal) and interest of KRW 40,000 in total (i.e., interest of KRW 12,120,000 in total) and the principal of KRW 19,906,651 in total, from March 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.