The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 135,068,893 as well as KRW 90,713,284 as of June 29, 2020 to September 29, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the application of the loan basic terms and conditions on April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff provided loans to the Defendant at KRW 100,000,000 from April 19, 2013 to April 19, 2018 during the loan period as a specialized fund, with the agreement set at 3.79% per annum and 12% per annum (6% per annum from January 1, 2019).

B. As of June 29, 2020, the Defendant lost the benefit of January 6, 2016 due to the breach of the duty stipulated in Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions of Loans, the Defendant committed a total of KRW 135,068,893 (i.e., the loan principle that the Defendant did not pay (i.e., KRW 90,713,284) (i.e., KRW 44,35,609).

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delayed compensation calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 29, 2020 to September 29, 2020, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from June 29, 2020, and from the next day to the day of full payment, calculated at the rate of 135,068,893 won, including the loan principle, and at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s company closed its business at the end of June 2016, and the Defendant’s representative director C who guaranteed the Defendant’s debt of the instant loan was decided to authorize the individual rehabilitation and repayment plan, and thus, the remaining loan principle is repaid according to the repayment plan. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

Modern, the condition in which the Defendant Company was closed;

The Plaintiff’s claim in this case against the Defendant is unlawful or the Defendant seeking the payment of the principal of the loan to the Defendant is unlawful solely on the ground that a decision to authorize the individual rehabilitation and repayment plan to C, a joint guarantor of the instant loan obligation, is made and the repayment of the principal of the loan is made according to the repayment plan.