1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from December 19, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant with the interest rate of KRW 3% per month set on July 7, 2015.

B. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant, setting the period for repayment on August 7, 2015, at the rate of KRW 3% per month.

C. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant on September 8, 2015, setting the period of repayment as 3% per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 35,000,000 (= KRW 10,000,000,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from December 19, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, as the payment period for the loan amount of KRW 10,000,000,000) and the damages for delay calculated from December 19, 2018 to the day of full payment.

3. On the judgment of the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, in lieu of the repayment of the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant changed the name in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff, around July 2015, Chapter C’s 49 of the franchisium.

In addition to the fact-finding results of this Court's fact-finding on the evidence No. 3 of this Court, D's all claims on Chapter 49 of C's Posium C's Posium certificate on July 17, 2015, notified C's Posium to the plaintiff, and notified C's Posium to the plaintiff and registered as the plaintiff by the holder of the right in Chapter 49 of the above Posium certificate as the plaintiff is recognized.

However, barring special circumstances, it is not reasonable to presume that an obligor transfers another obligation to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligation by means of a security for repayment of obligation or a repayment, barring special circumstances, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the original claim is extinguished if the assignment of obligation is transferred.