A. On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 13, 2003, lent KRW 50,000,000 to the net C at the interest rate of 24% per annum; and (b) on September 13, 2005, the period of repayment was determined

(hereinafter “instant loan”). As a security for the said loan, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name was completed with respect to the apartment house for the two multi-households of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul and the lower ground brick 96С and the lower ground brick slves roof, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 65,00,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On April 27, 2006, the deceased C died, and the Defendant was appointed as an administrator of inherited property of the deceased C.

C. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Around that time, the notice of assignment of claims was given to the Defendant.

Plaintiff

On July 6, 2016, the succeeding intervenor received dividends of KRW 172,958,904 on the basis of the instant collateral security right (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 from April 4, 2006 to June 29, 2016) from the Seoul Southern District Court’sF Real Estate Compulsory Auction procedure to KRW 24% per annum.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's successor intervenor

A. The Plaintiff is seeking the payment of the instant loan to the Defendant.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit since the instant loan claim was transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s successor sought the payment of the instant loan to the Defendant.

However, in the F Real Estate Compulsory Auction proceeding with Seoul Southern District Court, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s successor is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan was paid out by allocating KRW 172,958,904 to the Plaintiff’s successor.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's successor's main claim are without merit.

3. The defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.