1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 59,600.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) determined a period of KRW 75 million as the purchase fund for the secondhand car to the Defendant at 36 months; (b) interest rate of KRW 10.9% per annum; and (c) interest rate of delay at 24% per annum.

B. The Defendant lost a fixed period of interest by delaying the payment of the principal and interest repaid in installments, and on October 2, 2018, the remainder of the principal and interest payment amounting to KRW 59,60,283 (= principal and interest amounting to KRW 57,917,90 and delay damages amounting to KRW 1,682,293).

C. On March 19, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred all of the loan claims against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. On March 20, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a notice of assignment to the Defendant by content-certified mail.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap's evidence 1 to 5, Gap's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not hold a claim against the defendant any longer by transferring all of the loan claims against the defendant to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is without merit.

The plaintiff submitted an application for withdrawal after the plaintiff's successor's motion for intervention, but the lawsuit remains without the defendant's consent.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor who acquired all of the loan claims at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the delay interest rate from October 3, 2018 to the date of full payment, to the agreed interest rate of 59,60,283 won and the remaining principal and interest of 57,917,90 won.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff paid a loan to the LAF without the defendant's consent and did not pay the loan to the defendant, and that the LAF also paid a loan to the non-party G and did not deliver the loan to the defendant, and the loan under the loan agreement was not actually made.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the loan in this case is a second loan for the payment of the purchase price for the second loan, and the defendant expressed the actual borrower in the second loan purchased as "Seoul G."