1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,311,488 and KRW 55,247,951 among them, from April 2, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. with the following terms and extended KRW 67,00,000.

The loan principal of KRW 67,00,000 shall be interest rate of KRW 21.90 per annum for the 49-month loan interest rate of KRW 29.00 per annum.

B. On April 4, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a bond transfer contract with Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. and received the above loan claim against the Defendant of Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. on April 2, 2014.

On April 3, 2014, Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

C. The Plaintiff’s claim amount as of April 1, 2014 against the Defendant is as follows.

(1) Amount of 55,247,951 won (2) interest unpaid at 2,922,899 won (3) interest unpaid at 140,638 won (4), unpaid fees, annual fees, and other 0 won) 58,311,48 won ( fact that no dispute over the grounds for recognition exists, evidence A1, 12 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 58,311,488 and the remaining principal of KRW 55,247,951 with interest calculated at the rate of 29% per annum from April 2, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's argument that the defendant is the victim who suffered a second-hand loan from B and C, and that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since it does not conclude a loan contract with the plaintiff or Hyundai Mack social money or received a loan.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was a victim of fraud from B and C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 67,00,000 from Hyundai Myman Social Co., Ltd. as stated in the foregoing basic facts. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the loan contract is invalid because the Defendant did not directly receive KRW 67,00,000,000. However, in the middle and second loans, the second and second loans are paid to the seller as the purchase price of the vehicle.