1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The Defendant’s successor 23,312.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are recognized if the facts of recognition add the whole purport of the pleading to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6:

1) On November 11, 2014, D Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 12,400,000 to the Defendant at the interest rate of 24% per annum, the repayment method by determining the repayment method by equal installments of principal and interest for 36 months. On September 4, 2015, D Co., Ltd loaned KRW 7,00,000 per annum with interest rate of arrears 34.9% per annum, and the repayment method by determining the repayment method by equal installments of principal and interest for 36 months.

2) On April 18, 2018, D Co., Ltd. transferred each of the above loans to the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above loans.

3) On March 4, 2019, each of the above claims transferred to the Plaintiff is as follows.

On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred each of the above claims to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors on September 16, 202, and notified the said assignment on October 8, 202, the Plaintiff again transferred the said claims to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors on September 16, 202, on September 8, 202, with a total of KRW 5,902,426, 6,142,174, and KRW 12,719,08,08, KRW 12,593,530,000).

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc., for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Succession to the instant loan amounting to KRW 23,312,618 (i.e., the balance of KRW 12,719,08,08) and the principal amounting to KRW 12,719,08, which the Plaintiff’s Succession to the instant loan amounting to KRW 12,719,08 from July 14, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor participated in the trial of the court below. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.