1. As to the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 61,709,344 won and the 61,066,489 won out of the aforementioned money, the Defendant began on March 29, 2017.

1. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. Facts 1) On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff extended a loan to the Defendant with a rate of KRW 134,540,000 at 24% per annum. 2) The Defendant lost the benefit under the foregoing loan agreement on March 28, 2017. In such a case, the remainder of the loan was KRW 61,06,489, and the amount of interest accrued during the attempted loan was KRW 642,855.

3) On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the same claim as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Plaintiff’s above to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the transfer. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s successor the same money as the written claim is stated in the judgment.

2. The defendant's defense of repayment is a defense that the defendant made payment to the plaintiff through a public auction, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made payment with no specific content such as the amount of payment in the argument, and therefore, the defendant's defense is not acceptable.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.