1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff is a joint law office.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, under the trade name of “D”, engaged in registered credit business as provided by the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).

B. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff drawn up a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement No. 3120 of 2006 between the Defendant and a notary public on a document drawn up a joint law office (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

The content is that “the Plaintiff borrowed the principal amount of KRW 3,900,000 from the Defendant on December 23, 2006 at an interest rate of KRW 66% per annum, due date for payment on March 23, 2007, and the above borrowed amount (hereinafter “the borrowed amount”) shall be repaid in equal installments each day from December 26, 2006 to March 23, 207.”

C. On April 27, 2015, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff did not repay KRW 2,957,700, the sum of KRW 2,954,300, the interest calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from March 24, 2007 to April 20, 2015, from March 24, 2007 to April 20, 2015, based on the instant authentic deed, that “The Plaintiff applied for the attachment and collection order on the Plaintiff’s claims against the agricultural cooperative, etc. under the instant authentic deed.”

On April 30, 2015, the above court rendered a decision to accept the entire claim. D.

Meanwhile, as of March 23, 2007, the Defendant received a total of KRW 3,065,000 from the Plaintiff to the time at which the loan was due, and the remainder is KRW 835,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Of the Plaintiff’s loan funds, the original principal is KRW 2,500,000, and the remainder of KRW 1,400,000 is the interest that the Defendant requested.

In addition, the loan of this case is a so-called claim for the number of days, and the plaintiff borrowed money and repaid it every day, and around March 2007, the defendant is an employee of the defendant.