1. As to KRW 76,147,013 and KRW 70,000 among them, the Defendant shall annually pay to the Plaintiff KRW 76,147,00,000 from September 26, 2017 to January 24, 2018.

1. Chief;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant on August 22, 2014, and KRW 30,000,000 on September 4, 2014 to the Defendant on the condition of automatic extension for each year, and KRW 8.5% fixed rate for each year. 2) The Defendant did not pay the principal and the agreed interest on each of the above loans from March 18, 2018.

3) As of September 25, 2017, the Defendant bears the principal obligation of KRW 70,00,000 and interest obligation of KRW 6,147,013, among the above loans as of September 25, 2017, and the agreed interest rate of the above loans is KRW 22% per annum. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 76,147,013 and KRW 70,000 from September 26, 2017 to January 24, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, KRW 22% per annum under the agreed interest rate and KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff’s employees asserted by the Defendant and Nonparty D altered the terms and conditions of the loan transaction agreement on the said loan. After forging the application for the deposit transaction under the Defendant’s name, the Defendant withdrawn the above loan deposited into the Defendant’s account in the future, and the Defendant did not bear the above loan obligation.

2. According to the evidence No. 1-1, the loan application form, the letter of loan transaction No. 1-4, the letter of loan transaction No. 1-2, the letter of loan No. 2-1, the letter of loan transaction No. 2-2, and the other evidence No. 1-2, which the Defendant recognized the establishment of the board, all of the plaintiff's allegations can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, since there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion that the loan was withdrawn from the defendant's account after the alteration of the loan transaction agreement and the forgery of the deposit transaction application, this argument by the defendant is rejected.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is justified.