1. The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 as well as its annual interest from September 23, 2015 to May 13, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2012, a non-party corporation Southern-si Unemployment lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant without setting the due date for repayment (hereinafter “the instant loan”). On July 20, 2015, a non-party corporation Southern-si Unemployment transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the relevant credit on July 23, 2015.

B. On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on November 6, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's loan and its delay damages are assessed against the plaintiff, since the plaintiff's loan and its transfer was notified to the plaintiff while transferring the loan and the loan and its transfer was notified to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff transferred the loan and its transfer was notified to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor the loan and its delay damages.

On the other hand, in the case of a loan for consumption where no time for repayment has been fixed, the lender shall demand the return by setting a reasonable period (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the borrower is liable for delay from the time when the lender notified the return to the lender. However, there is no assertion as to the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan of this case prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint

Therefore, it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation from September 23, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the plaintiff notified the plaintiff to return the loan of this case against the defendant, and from August 22, 2015, it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation from September 23, 2015, which is the date of the ruling of this case, to May 13, 2016.