1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 632,09,546 as well as KRW 369,00,000 among them, from March 25, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 369,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 20, 209 at the maturity of July 15, 2011, at the interest rate of KRW 6.35% (interest rate) per annum, at the interest rate of KRW 14.35% per annum (interest rate), and at the interest rate of interest rate of KRW 14.35% per annum (interest rate), and the Defendant lost the benefit as of July 11, 2011 by delaying the repayment of the above loan obligations (hereinafter “the instant loan obligations”). The amount of the instant loan obligations can be acknowledged as constituting the cause of the total amount of KRW 369,00,000 as of March 10, 2016, and interest rate of KRW 263,009,546 as of KRW 632,09,546.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 632,09,546 won of loans and 369,000,000 won of principal among them, which is calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 25, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s loan obligation of this case was extinguished on May 30, 201 by designating the Plaintiff as the first priority beneficiary in order to secure the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant, while it entrusted the instant apartment with the Korea Housing Trust Co., Ltd. on May 30, 201, when it entrusted the instant apartment to the Korea Housing Trust Co., Ltd. on May 30, 201, by having the Plaintiff as the first priority beneficiary in order to secure the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant.

On the other hand, even if the defendant's allegation is recognized, it is reasonable to view that the designation of the first beneficiary of this case is for the guarantee of the obligation of the loan of this case. As long as the plaintiff did not receive the profit by exercising the first priority right, the obligation of the loan of this case is not extinguished as a matter of course by providing such security. The defendant'