1. As to KRW 166,287,715 and KRW 75,655,556 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be from November 24, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is in fact identical to the case of the application for the auction of real estate C in the Incheon District Court against the real estate owned by the defendant. However, the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the case where the parties are identical. The lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff claims the payment of the loan to the defendant, and the case of the above real estate rental auction against the real estate owned by the defendant as the defendant's creditor cannot be deemed to be the same case. Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15% per annum on November 2, 2017, the extension period of KRW 108,00,00 to the Defendant. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 108,000 on November 2, 2019, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 14.19% per annum on November 23, 2019. (2) The remainder of the loan interest of KRW 159,65,556 on November 23, 2015 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 75,65,565,56 on November 2, 2015, KRW 108, KRW 165, KRW 2816, Nov. 24, 2016; and (ii) the interest interest rate of KRW 108,565,201, KRW 16,5614.6).7

[Basis] The evidence Nos. 1 through 5 [including a serial number; the defendant denies its establishment by asserting that each loan transaction agreement (the part of the defendant's signature with the evidence No. 1 is not the defendant's own seal). However, the authenticity of the document can be proved by the comparison of the writing or the seal impression, and the comparison of the writing or the seal impression belongs to the free evaluation certificate of the fact-finding court.