1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, with a comprehensive view to the purport of the entire pleadings, and there is no other counter-proof.

1) On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) granted a loan of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant for a loan period of KRW 48 months; (b) interest rate of KRW 19.9% per annum; and (c) overdue interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) As of October 25, 2018, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the instant loan, thereby losing the benefit of time. As of October 25, 2018, the instant loan amounted to KRW 25,536,301, the unpaid interest amounting to KRW 908,364, the delay damages amounting to KRW 25,07,07, respectively.

As of November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff treated the above used vehicle by public auction and deposited the price of KRW 7,379,111.

3. On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the said transfer on or around March 12, 2019.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the transferee of the claim for the instant loan, with the agreed interest rate of 27.9% per annum from March 13, 2019 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor seeks, as to the remaining principal and interest of 18,519,057 won and the remaining principal of 17,429,426 won.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not properly examine the defendant's assertion and concluded the loan contract of this case, which is difficult to repay because it is difficult to pay due to the difficult family circumstances. However, this does not constitute a ground for refusing to pay the loan claim.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is difficult to accept.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is justifiable, and the Defendant’s appeal is justifiable.