1. The Defendant: (a) from March 29, 2017 to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, as to KRW 54,822,419, out of KRW 56,525,303 and the said money.

1. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant KRW 109,90,000 on October 31, 2012, and KRW 59,600,00 on the same day to the Defendant at the rate of 24% per annum for delay damages after the loss of each term interest. 2) The Defendant forfeited the benefit of time pursuant to the agreement at the time of the above loan on March 28, 2017. The remainder of the loans in this context is KRW 134,437,979 and KRW 20,384,440 in total, KRW 54,82,419 in total, and interest accrued at KRW 1,069,757 and KRW 263,127 in total, KRW 1,702,84 in total.

3) On May 4, 2017 and February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff each claim as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Plaintiff’s above to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the transfer. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in subparagraphs A and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the same money as the written order to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

2. The defendant's defense of repayment is defense to the effect that the plaintiff paid all of the claims of this case through the public auction of vehicles. However, there are no specific contents, such as the amount or time of repayment that the defendant paid to the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the repayment was made as alleged above. Thus, the defendant's defense is not acknowledged.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.