1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the defendant borrowed KRW 10,00,00 with the loan period of KRW 48 months, agreed interest rate of KRW 33.9%, and interest rate of KRW 39% on December 14, 2011 (hereinafter "the savings bank of this case"), and the defendant borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from the savings bank of this case with interest rate of KRW 384,759 on April 14, 2014 while paying the principal and interest of KRW 385,759 on April 14, 2014; ③ The savings bank of this case transferred the above claim to the plaintiff on March 21, 2017, notified the defendant on April 14, 201 by mail; ④ the loan amount of KRW 360,365,756,75,375,785,65,75,75,7,207.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the conclusion of the instant savings bank’s loan agreement with 33.9% of the agreed interest rate and 39% of the overdue interest rate is null and void by an unfair contract using the Defendant’s old circumstances. However, there is no evidence to prove that the instant savings bank concluded the said loan agreement using the Defendant’s old circumstances, and the said interest rate is within the scope of the interest rate limit stipulated in Article 8 of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 11544, Nov. 11, 2012). Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim has expired, but the Defendant discharged a part of the principal and interest of the instant loan on April 14, 2014.