1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 128,078,855 won and 84,311,065 won among them, from February 26, 2015 to the day of full payment.

The Defendant approved that the terms and conditions of credit transactions of the Plaintiff shall be faithfully implemented, and the interest rate of KRW 125,00,00 from the Plaintiff on July 25, 2008 shall vary; damages for delay shall be the highest of 22% per annum; the Defendant applied for commencement of auction to the Do Government District Court B on the basis of the right to collateral security established by the Plaintiff on the real estate owned by the Defendant to secure the above loan as the Defendant delayed the payment of the above loan; the Defendant received dividends of KRW 26,846,871 on July 30, 2013 from the above auction procedure and appropriated the above loan amount of KRW 84,311,065, interest interest rate and overdue interest rate and KRW 43,767,790 on February 25, 2015; and the fact that the Defendant did not dispute over the above loan amount of KRW 15,852 on July 30, 2014 in the order of statutory appropriation; or that there was no dispute over the loan rate of KRW 185 through 385.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from February 26, 2015 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to the above principal and interest of KRW 128,078,85, and the principal of the loan of KRW 84,31,065.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the purport that since the loan remains remaining even though the secured real estate was sold at the auction procedure after the plaintiff determined that the real estate value would be sufficient and that the loan was made by recommending the defendant to lend the loan, it is unreasonable that the defendant bears all the remaining principal and interest of the loan. However, the plaintiff's claim cannot be rejected solely on the grounds alleged by the defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.