1. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 as well as to the amount from December 1, 2007 to May 25, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 7, 2007, the Defendant prepared to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing KRW 59 million from the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2007, with the date of the payment as of November 30, 2007. However, the overdue interest column of the above loan certificate did not state the interest rate on delay damages.

B. The Defendant failed to repay KRW 35 million out of the above borrowed money. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s successor notified the Plaintiff that he/she transferred his/her claim for the borrowed money to the Defendant and that he/she transferred his/her claim to the Defendant on the same day.

C. On September 2016, the Plaintiff decided to re-transfer the claim for the above loan to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor. In this case, the Defendant sent a copy of the written complaint to “Spoe-gu D” and the Defendant’s notification of the assignment of the claim was received on April 19, 2017 by E residing in the Defendant’s domicile.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The amount of damages for nonperformance of monetary obligation is calculated by statutory interest rate (main sentence of Article 397(1) of the Civil Act), and a person who lends money can seek damages for delay at the statutory rate of 5% per annum from the day following the due date, even if there is no special agreement.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor KRW 35 million and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 1, 2007 to May 25, 2017, which is the day following the due date of repayment, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff successor is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim and the remaining claims by the plaintiff successor are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.