1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,432,775 as well as KRW 26,870,541 as the interest rate from June 12, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant received loans from the Plaintiff at interest rate of KRW 29,300,000 per annum, 7.9% per annum, and at 592,698 won per annum per month during the 60-month period for repayment and at 24% per annum, with interest rate of KRW 592,698 per month.

B. On or before June 11, 2015, the Defendant lost its interest due to failure to repay part of its principal and interest, and the principal and interest of the loan, etc. as of June 11, 2015 are as follows.

1) The remaining principal: 26,870,541 won (i.e., loans KRW 29,300,000; KRW 2,429,459) of the loaned principal as of June 11, 2015: Unpaid interest on June 11, 2015: 509,234 Won 3) as of June 15, 2015: 53,000 won: Total amount of outstanding principal and interest due: KRW 27,432,75 (Grounds for Recognition) : Each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim under paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreed delay damages rate of 26,870,541 won from June 12, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to the total amount of outstanding principal and interest of the loan up to June 11, 2015, and the principal of the loan, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the acceptance of the detention house through the branch immediately after the acceptance of the detention house, and did not refuse the repayment of the loan, and it is practically difficult to repay the loan because it is under the reduction of the detention house. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case is abuse of rights.

However, it cannot be seen as an abuse of rights to seek the repayment of the principal and interest of loans against the defendant who lost the benefit of time by the plaintiff, and the defendant's assertion that it is practically difficult to repay the debt because the defendant was confined in the detention house is difficult to be seen as a legal argument that can reject the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant