1. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 and interest thereon from September 9, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2017, Defendant and D were sentenced to a conviction of KRW 5 million (Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan5021) on each of the following criminal facts, and both appeals (Seoul Central District Court 2017No394) and appeals (Supreme Court 2017Do10308) were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

D is a person who engages in loan brokerage business under the trade name of "F" in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 208, and the defendant is a person who engages in loan brokerage business under the trade name of "H" in Seoul Jung-gu G and 403.

No loan broker may receive any consideration in connection with loan brokerage from the opposite contractual party.

Nevertheless, around August 11, 201, the Plaintiff requested loan brokerage because it is necessary to purchase the 4th floor building on the 4th floor above the 1st century and Osan City. Accordingly, around the same day J, K, and L from the J, K, and L, and around August 19, 201, M received KRW 100 million in total from M as each loan brokerage commission and as an intermediary commission.

As a result, D and the defendant received a loan in collusion from the other party to the transaction where the loan was made.

B. The defendant is the above A.

Of the brokerage commission of the subsection 10 million won, 32 million won (the plaintiff borrowed 400 million won from K) was directly collected by K.

C. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received a claim amounting to KRW 60,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim amount relating to the claim for return of unjust enrichment based on the instant judgment against the Defendant, which was issued with Suwon District Court 2017TTT8914. The said assignment order was served on the Defendant on August 25, 2017, and on August 31, 2017, and became final and conclusive on September 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-15, 17-20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Article 11-2 (2) of the Credit Business Act is applicable to loan brokerage companies and loan solicitors.