1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,340,906 and KRW 4,540,906 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 39% per annum from October 9, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to a loan claim

A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff registered as a credit service provider (1) entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the loan amount of KRW 300 million, annual interest rate of KRW 24 million (12 million in installments) including the loan amount of KRW 100 million lent to the Defendant on August 14, 2013, annual interest rate of KRW 39%, annual overdue interest rate of KRW 39% on the repayment date, and November 20, 2013 on the repayment date. The loan amount of KRW 6.9 billion in advance from the loan amount of the instant agreement amount of KRW 300,000,000 for the preparation of interest and authentic deed, and the actual loan that the Defendant actually received is KRW 29,310,000,000,000,000, including KRW 100,000,

(2) On October 21, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which became the debtor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, as a collateral for the instant loan agreement, on October 21, 2013, with respect to C, 473 square meters, D, 23 square meters, and C, and four-story accommodation facilities (hereinafter “the instant cartel”).

(3) The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 6 million on November 20, 2013, and KRW 6 million on December 20, 2013.

(4) Upon the Plaintiff’s request, a voluntary auction procedure (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch E) was conducted with respect to the instant telecom. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 382,614,098 as a mortgagee at the above auction procedure.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1 (the loan transaction contract, the defendant's loan transaction contract, the overdue interest rate and the repayment date of the above document were originally blank, but the plaintiff asserted that the above part was voluntarily recorded and altered on November 20, 2013. However, there is no evidence to prove otherwise without belief that the evidence No. 1 was stated in the evidence No. 5-2, No. 5-3, Gap evidence No. 6-1, No. 6-2, Gap evidence No. 1, 2, and 12-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. (1) On November 20, 2013, the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff 5,862,00,00 as agreed between October 21, 2013 and November 20, 2013, i.e., KRW 5,862,00 from the Defendant’s actual payment of KRW 29,3.1 million x KRW 293,100.