1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 79,145,385 and KRW 73,00,000 among the costs, from January 31, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Around August 3, 2017, the Defendant entered into an agreement on the loan of KRW 73,000,000 from the Plaintiff, 48 months of the loan period, 24% per annum less than twice in arrears, 25% per annum at least twice in arrears, and 25% per annum in arrears, with the loan of KRW 73,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The Defendant borrowed KRW 73,00,000 in accordance with the instant loan agreement, but according to the statement in the evidence No. 15, the above loan was deposited into the G bank account in the name of F as designated by the Defendant;

On November 1, 2017, the principal and interest were in arrears and the interest of the due date was lost.

On the other hand, the principal and interest of the instant loan are KRW 6,145,385 as of January 30, 2018, including principal KRW 73,00,000,00 as of January 30, 201, and overdue interest, and KRW 79,145,385.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from January 31, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the base date for calculating the principal and interest of the loan under the loan agreement of this case, as to the principal and interest of KRW 79,145,385, and the principal and interest of KRW 73,000,000 among them, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant heard that he would change the company’s name within 15 days from the purchase of the digging machine necessary for the factory under the Defendant’s name after being offered employment from the daily allowance for employment fraud, and held out the documents necessary for the loan. However, the Defendant asserts that the above loan was unfairly loaned to the account that was demanded by the employment fraud daily allowance rather than the Defendant’s account, and thus, it cannot be held liable to the Defendant, the victim.

The Defendant’s assertion was fraudulent from the daily allowance for employment fraud, and entered into the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant loan agreement.