1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 564,022,726 and the amount of KRW 435,839,378 from February 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2012, the Defendant paid interest on KRW 750 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”) based on the agreed rate on September 11, 2015, annual interest rate of KRW 6.7%, and each three-month period from the date of maturity to September 11, 2015, and where the interest is delayed at least once, the Defendant shall lose the obligor’s benefit, and the interest rate on delay shall be determined based on the overdue interest rate of the financial institution and received loans, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). (b)

After that, the Defendant did not timely pay the agreed interest under the instant loan agreement and lost the benefit of time. The Plaintiff received part of the loan principal of the instant loan from the voluntary auction procedure (Seoul District Court B) to the real estate owned by the Defendant on February 10, 2015, and based on February 22, 2015, the remaining principal of the loan under the instant loan agreement is KRW 435,839,378, and unpaid interest and delay damages are KRW 128,183,348, and the rate of delay damages due to the change in the interest rate of financial institutions is KRW 17.7% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17.7% per annum from February 23, 2015 to the date of full payment, as to KRW 564,02,726, and the remaining principal of the loan, plus KRW 128,183,348, including unpaid interest, etc. in the remaining principal of the loan, as of February 22, 2015 under the loan agreement of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The purport of the argument is that the actual debtor of the loan contract of this case entered into the loan contract of this case with the defendant under the understanding of the plaintiff union E at the time of C, D, or the defendant. The plaintiff was well aware that it is C and D, not the actual debtor of the loan contract of this case, and was liable to the defendant as the debtor.