1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 60,184,451 as well as KRW 59,670,189 among them, per annum from May 22, 2020 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 4, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant with a loan amounting to KRW 62 million, 48 months, repayment of principal and interest on repayment method, 5.5% per annum of interest on loan, and 8.5% per annum of interest on default (hereinafter “instant loan”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff provided a loan to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”). (B) The Defendant did not pay the instant loan principal and interest on June 4, 2020, and the Defendant did not pay the instant loan principal and interest on June 4, 2020.

(c)

As of May 21, 2020, the sum of the loan principles of this case as of 60,184,451 won is 59,670,189 won among them.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 8.5% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from May 22, 2020 to the day of complete payment, for the total amount of KRW 60,184,451 won of the loan principal of this case and the principal of KRW 59,670,189 of the loan principal of this case, barring any special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination that the Defendant received the instant loan to purchase used cars (hereinafter referred to as the instant used cars in 2018 GLC250d), and transferred it to D, but did not acquire the said used cars, and as D knew, acquired the said money by deceiving the Defendant. As such, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the occurrence of the accident indicating such fact, and the Plaintiff accepted it, and thus, the Plaintiff did not lose its interest due to the delay of repayment.

The argument is asserted.

D is recognized to have been prosecuted for fraud and embezzlement if the description of evidence No. 1 added the purport of the entire argument.

However, such facts or other facts alone cannot be viewed as delaying the repayment of the loan of this case solely on the grounds that the defendant asserted, and the plaintiff suspended the repayment.

There is no evidence to see.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.