The defendant shall fully pay to the plaintiff's successor intervenor KRW 56,470,906 and KRW 54,758,573 among them from August 3, 2018.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including a serial number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 91,00,000 to the defendant on July 27, 2017 (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case"). The defendant delayed to pay the principal and interest of the loan of this case; the plaintiff settled the principal and interest of the loan of this case on August 2, 2018 according to the loan contract of this case as of August 2, 2018, the total amount of KRW 56,470,906 (the principal and interest of the loan of KRW 54,758,573, 5731, interest KRW 152,602), and the plaintiff transferred the principal and interest of the loan of this case to the succeeding intervenor and notified the defendant of the transfer on December 14, 2018.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 56,470,906 as well as the amount of KRW 54,758,573 as interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from August 3, 2018 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant, an agent of the plaintiff, signed the loan-related document without notifying that it is a document related to the loan when concluding the loan contract in this case, the defendant did not intend to conclude the loan contract in this case or concluded the loan contract in this case by deception of the plaintiff, the loan contract in this case is invalid against the defendant.

However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the defendant himself/herself can verify the fact that he/she has concluded the loan contract after entering into the loan contract of this case with the plaintiff and through his/her identification currency, while there is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstances as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.