1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff's successor intervenor KRW 5,020,352 and 2.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; or the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and the entire arguments.

On October 2, 2002, good mutual savings banks (hereinafter “Good Mutual Savings Banks”) established and lent loans of KRW 3,000,000 annually to the Defendant on October 2, 2002 as interest rate of KRW 29%, interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, and due date of repayment of October 2, 2003.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The instant loan claims amounting to KRW 2,723,099, the remaining principal as of March 14, 2007, and KRW 5,020,352, the sum of KRW 2,723,09, and the accrued interest amounting to KRW 2,297,253.

B. On July 26, 2007, the Good Mutual Savings was declared bankrupt in Suwon District Court 2007Hahap7.

The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

C. On October 4, 2013, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on or around January 10, 2014.

2. The facts that the plaintiff transferred the loan claim of this case to the intervenor as to the plaintiff's claim are acknowledged earlier.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim based on the loan claim of this case.

The plaintiff's claim is rejected.

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the intervenor who acquired the instant loan claim of this case the delay interest rate of 25% per annum from March 15, 2007, which is the day following the base date of calculating the remaining claim, to the day of full payment, as to the total amount of KRW 5,020,352, and the remaining principal of the loan of this case as of March 14, 2007, and the remaining principal of KRW 2,723,099.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not receive the instant loan, and the Defendant’s husband B obtained the instant loan by stealing the Defendant’s authorized certificate and the name. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim in this case is unlawful.

In the light of the relationship between the Defendant and B, etc., No. 1-3.