1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The Plaintiff asserted that C acquired the loan claim amounting to KRW 250,00,000 from the Defendant and claimed for payment of the loan principal and damages for delay. However, the actual contributor of KRW 250,00,000 was D, and the said money was transferred to C under the name of his/her own partner C. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the loan claim by transfer was merely a false appearance that conforms to D or C, because it was difficult for D or C to directly file the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is by the litigation trust.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4-13 of the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4-13 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff only took the form of the acquisition of the claim against the Defendant without the intent to actually acquire the loan claims against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C: (a) determined on September 5, 2007 as interest rate of KRW 24% per annum; and (b) on November 4, 201, the repayment period of KRW 100,000 on September 14, 2007 as interest rate of KRW 24% per annum; and (c) notified the Defendant of the foregoing loan claim on September 17, 2012 on the same day after transferring it to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 250,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. 1) On September 5, 2007, the principal evidence corresponding to the Plaintiff’s assertion of KRW 150,000,000 as a loan of KRW 150,000 is examined as to whether the monetary loan contract can be used as evidence.

As of September 5, 2007, the date on which the person whose seal affixed the defendant's corporate seal to the above document was written, F, who is not the representative director E of the defendant, does not have any dispute between the parties.