1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,436,075 won and 12,203,825 won among them, from June 27, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned (hereinafter “instant loan”) KRW 30,100,000 of the loan principal to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 7.9%, 60 months during the loan period, 60 months during the loan period, 608,880 won (e.g., equal repayment of principal and interest), and 24% per annum during the overdue interest rate (hereinafter “instant loan”).

The Plaintiff’s basic terms and conditions of credit transaction at the time of the instant loan stipulate that “the obligor is deemed to have suspended payment due to closure, escape, or any other reason” etc. as grounds for loss of benefit due to the instant loan.

(Article VIII(1)5). (b)

On March 26, 2015, the Defendant asserted that there was no obligation to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan contract at the time of consultation with the Plaintiff’s employee.

C. As of June 26, 2015, following the occurrence of the cause for loss of benefit under the above terms and conditions, the sum of the principal and interest of the loan that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff as of June 26, 2015 (=the principal of the loan KRW 12,203,825, interest KRW 214,578, damages for delay KRW 17,672).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (the authenticity of the petition shall be presumed to be established because there is no dispute over the part of the human body), 2 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,436,075 of the principal and interest of the instant loan and KRW 12,203,825 of the principal and interest of the loan, calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from June 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The claimant B consented to the loan contract of this case with the knowledge of 1% as the guarantor by requesting that the vehicle will not have any damage or damage upon the request of the claimant B for the letter of guarantee for the purchase of the vehicle, and the principal and interest under the loan contract of this case shall not be borne.

B. According to each of the above evidence, the loan contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was effective, and each of the evidence submitted by the defendant is alone.