1. The defendant shall pay 3,238,968 won from the plaintiff and 39% per annum from February 28, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2013, the Defendant, as a credit service provider, deducted KRW 35 million from the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties’s mother from the interest rate of KRW 35 million per month, the overdue interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, and KRW 1050,000,000,000 from the loan (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On February 26, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) under the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan District Court registry No. 9459, Feb. 26, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million to the Defendant on January 27, 2014, and KRW 42 million on February 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment asserted that the Defendant promised to cancel the instant mortgage after receiving KRW 44050,000 as the principal and interest of the instant loan.

However, there is no evidence to prove this.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

However, in light of the fact that, if the Plaintiff deducts KRW 44,50,000, the remaining loan principal and interest is KRW 3,250,000,000, the Defendant received KRW 3,250,000 and asserts that the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant right to collateral security, etc., it is reasonable to interpret that, barring any special circumstance, the remaining debt is repaid among the Plaintiff’s claim and then the purport of seeking cancellation of the instant right to collateral security is included in the event it is found that the repayment amount does not become extinct due to dispute over

In light of the calculation of the principal and interest of the instant loan and the existence of remaining debts, the Defendant is the credit service provider, and thus, the instant loan is not subject to the Interest Limitation Act, but rather subject to the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users Act (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).