1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,820,300 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 19, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

The Plaintiff, as an installment financing service agent registered as the rest point of Han Capital, purchased 24 million won by the Defendant’s introduction of the middle and high-speed D (2013) on February 2, 2015, and received loans from the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff, and as the Plaintiff did not repay it, the Plaintiff subrogated for 24,820,300 won of the principal and interest of the loan to Han Capital on February 17, 2015. The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by adding the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the day following the delivery date of the complaint sought by the Plaintiff as the payment date to the day of full payment.

In this regard, the defendant lent only the name of loan to C in order to raise the performance upon the request of friendly job offering C. Therefore, the above loan was immediately transferred to C, and at the time, the defendant was aware of the plaintiff as the workplace partner fee of C, and the plaintiff was all aware of these circumstances. Thus, according to the health department and Eul (the non-prosecution decision of the case in which the plaintiff filed a complaint against C and the defendant as a fraud) under 1, the defendant only lent the name of the loan to C, but it was deemed that the plaintiff did not provide guidance on the above loan. However, on February 16, 2015, the defendant prepared a notarial deed (4) to receive the payment by February 27, 2015, including the above loan, between C and C on February 16, 2015, which was before the payment was made by the plaintiff.

or the defendant has previously lent only the name of the loan to C.

(3) On the sole basis of the circumstances, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known of such circumstances at the time of the above loan brokerage, and there is no other evidence to recognize the interest, and the Defendant’s assertion cannot be

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.