1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 84,722,383 and KRW 11,482,974 among them shall be from July 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4.

On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned 455,000,000 won to the Defendant (the first loan) and 30,000,000 won (the second loan).

B. Each of the above loans has expired, or the Defendant has lost the benefit of time due to delay in paying the principal and interest of the loan.

C. The Plaintiff recovered a part of the principal and interest of the loan through the auction procedure for collateral offered. The balance of the principal and interest of the first loan as of July 29, 2015 is KRW 84,722,383 (principal KRW 11,482,974). The balance of the principal and interest of the second loan is KRW 36,561,084 (principal KRW 29,834,494).

The overdue interest rate of the first loan is 14.21% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of the second loan is 17.43%.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 84,722,383 of the principal and interest of KRW 11,482,97 of the loan and the principal of KRW 11,482,974 at the rate of 14.21% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay from July 30, 2015 to the date of full payment, and the interest for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 36,561,084 of the balance of the principal and interest of KRW 29,834,494 of the principal and interest of the loan and the interest for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 17.43% per annum from July 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the remaining principal and interest of the loan collected through the auction procedure for collateral offered by the plaintiff were exempted from all, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.