1. The defendant shall pay 42,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 19% per annum from August 17, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, using dormant deposits, etc. as financial resources, is a public foundation with low interest rate business start-up and operating funds to support social enterprises for its business purposes. The selected welfare business entity granted subsidies to the selected welfare business entity, and the welfare business entity received subsidies from the Plaintiff and performed the business of lending funds for start-up and operation of social enterprises.

B. On August 17, 2010, A (B) who was selected as a welfare service provider and received subsidies from the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on August 17, 2015, under which the amount of funds for facilities and operation was KRW 200,000,000, and the agreed rate was 4.5% per annum, 19% per annum, 19% per annum, and 42,00,000,000.

C. In the event that continuous welfare programs are difficult due to the defective operation of A, the Plaintiff and A entered into an agreement on the assignment of claims to transfer A’s loan claims to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2012. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff received a notice of assignment from A and notified the Defendant of the fact of the assignment of claims.

The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the principal and interest of loan, but the defendant does not pay it.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, lost the benefit of time, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, the amount of KRW 42,00,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay damages, from August 17, 2010 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant extinguished all of the defendant's obligations because he provided A with consideration, such as performance diskettes and publication of printed articles, to A before transferring A's claim.

However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is therefore.