1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff's successor intervenor 4,247,375 won and 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2007, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 2,00,000 from Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Industrial Complex Loan”) at the interest rate of 48.545% per annum; (b) borrowed the principal and interest of the loan in installments; and (c) may thereafter obtain additional loans within the limit of KRW 10,00,000,000; and (d) in such case, the Defendant agreed to apply the terms and conditions stipulated in the above contract as they are (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. While the Defendant repaid the principal and interest of the loan in installments pursuant to the instant loan agreement, on October 21, 2009, received additional loans of KRW 3,700,000 (hereinafter the above loans of KRW 3,700,000) from mountain village loans (hereinafter the above loans of KRW 3,700,000), the above loans were fully repaid, but the existing loans were fully repaid. However, from around 2010, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the instant loans and lost a benefit of time thereafter.

C. Around December 31, 2012, an industrial complex loan transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of claims. D.

As of December 31, 2012, the instant loans amounting to KRW 2,655,584, interest 1,591,791 [the interest accrued until December 28, 201, KRW 288,511 (the interest interest accrued until December 28, 201, KRW 2,655,584) x 48.545% x 369 days (from December 29, 201 to December 31, 201) ± 365 days, and KRW 365 (the amount equal to or below the unit).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor the claim for the instant loan from the Plaintiff (=2,655,584 won 1,591,791 won) and 2,655,584 won, whichever is less than 48.55% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.

3. According to the conclusion, the claim of this case by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and thus, the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.