1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 220,932,331 among them, and the amount of KRW 4,932,31 among them, from June 1, 201 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Industrial Bank of Korea concluded a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant and loaned money to the Defendant, and on December 23, 2010, transferred each of the following loans to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the following day.

On September 15, 2004, 20.95% per annum 20.95% per annum 20.95% on August 8, 2006, 2006, 31% per annum 26.46,800,000,000 on January 26, 2007, 4.50,000 on April 4, 2007

B. The details of each loan principal as of May 12, 201 are as follows:

On or before May 12, 201, the principal of the loan 50,000,000,000,932,331 September 15, 2004 as principal on or before May 12, 2011, 36, 46,80,000,000 170,000,0000 170,000,000,000 on August 26, 2007 3, 2003. The fact that there is no dispute over each of the items of subparagraphs 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to April 4, 2007 50,000,0036,000,000,000, 220,932,331 / [applicable]

2. According to the allegations by the parties and the facts based on the above determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired each of the above loans the total amount of KRW 220,932,31 and the total amount of KRW 4,932,31, among them, KRW 20.95% per annum from June 1, 201 as of the above base date to the date of full payment, KRW 170,000,00 which the plaintiff seeks from June 1, 201 to the date of full payment, KRW 21% per annum from June 1, 2011 to the date of full payment, and KRW 46,00,000, which the plaintiff seeks, as of KRW 21% per annum from May 13, 201 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that even though the plaintiff collected 519,615,414 won exceeding the above principal due to the payment by subrogation of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and the voluntary auction of the defendant apartment, it violates the good faith principle to bring a lawsuit again, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. However, since the defendant is responsible for paying the entire principal and interest, it is difficult to see that the lawsuit in this case is contrary to the good faith principle solely on the

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion.