1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: (a) to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, KRW 3,909,293; and (b) to this effect on April 19, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 201, the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) loaned to the Defendant the rate of 31% per annum, the overdue interest rate of 39% per annum, and the period of loan of 8,000,000 won by setting the loan as 36 months. The Defendant agreed to repay the above loan in equal installments on the 21st day of each month during the above loan period plus the interest during the above loan period. If the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the loan for at least one month, the Defendant agreed to lose the benefit due to delay in paying the loan.

(hereinafter “instant loan” or “instant loan claim”). B.

After all, the Defendant repaid 4,090,707 won out of the principal amount of the instant loan to the Non-Party Savings Bank up to 22 times until April 19, 2013 and 3,499,89,600 won (=4,090,707 won 3,499,893 won). However, the Defendant began to delay the repayment of the principal and interest of the instant loan from May 21, 2013, and lost the interest on June 22, 2013 after one month thereafter.

C. On January 31, 2013, the Non-Party Savings Bank transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant loan claim on or before February 21, 2013 upon delegation by the Non-Party Savings Bank. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff, while the appellate trial of the instant case was pending, transferred the instant loan claim again to the Intervenor’s successor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and the Intervenor notified the Defendant of the fact of the secondary transfer of the instant loan claim on or before April 20, 2015 upon delegation by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim still sought payment of the principal and interest of the instant case against the Defendant without withdrawing from the instant lawsuit even after the Intervenor succeeded to the lawsuit at the trial court.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had already transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendant to the intervenors.