1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's successor's assertion

A. On February 7, 2011, 201, a wellcom Loans Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ wellcom Loans”) concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant under which the loan limit is KRW 5,000,000, the first loan limit is KRW 3,000,000, the contract term is from February 7, 2011 to February 1, 2013; 43.02% of the loan interest rate and the overdue interest rate are each 43.02% of the loan interest rate and the repayment method is equal to the principal and interest (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”); and on the same day, the Defendant loaned KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. However, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by failing to pay the principal and interest under the instant loan agreement.

C. On June 21, 2013, a wellcom loan transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff under a contract. On March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a mandatary entrusted with the authority to notify the assignment of claims under the said contract, notified the Defendant of the fact of the said assignment of claims.

As of January 1, 2017, the Defendant’s obligation to the instant loan amounted to KRW 3,696,691 in total, including principal KRW 2,246,067 and overdue interest KRW 1,450,624 (= KRW 2,246,067 + KRW 1,450,624).

E. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff pursuant to the contract, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the transfer of the said claim on June 19, 2018.

F. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, who is a legitimate transferee of the instant loan claim, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan as of January 1, 2017, KRW 3,696,691, and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 2,246,067, among them.

2. On February 7, 201, as to whether a well-dyingd loan was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant on February 7, 2011, the evidence No. 4 (Loan Contract) is admitted as evidence, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan contract.