1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant's successor to the plaintiff 34,685,728 won and 12.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Japan Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Japan Bank”), extended a loan to the Defendant (1) on August 6, 1999 at the maturity of KRW 75,000,000 on August 7, 199, at the rate of 13.75% per annum, and at the rate of 18.5% per annum.

(2) On November 24, 1997, a bank account loan was made up of KRW 30,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “second-party loan”). (b) Each of the instant loans, including the first and second loans, is “each of the instant loans.”

(1) Each of the instant loans principal and interest claims was transferred from the Japanese bank to the Plaintiff via the Korea Asset Management Corporation, MSB Master Park, Yangyang Social Co., Ltd., and one Credit Management Co., Ltd.

(2) On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the principal and interest claim as of October 31, 201 of each of the instant loans to the Intervenor succeeding to the claim (the trade name at that time was “the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund for the Stock Company”).

On June 5, 2012, the successor intervenor notified the defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail on behalf of the plaintiff.

C. The principal and interest of each of the instant loans as of November 18, 2014 (i.e., the principal and interest of KRW 34,685,728 (i.e., the principal and interest of KRW 12,451,357 and the delay damages of KRW 22,234,371 (i.e., the interest of KRW 12,451,357 and the delay damages of KRW 22,234,371). However, from October 31, 2011, the interest rate of KRW 17% per annum as stipulated in the rules of the succeeding intervenor was applied. The same applies to the second loan) is KRW 60,806,063 (i.e., the principal and interest of KRW 22,489,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. After the judgment of the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered by the first instance court, the Plaintiff transferred the principal and interest of each of the instant loans to the succeeding intervenor.

The plaintiff's assertion on the premise that he is the creditor of the principal and interest of each of the instant loans is without merit.

B. Determination as to the claims of the succeeding intervenor