1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 83,966,441 and the amount of KRW 83,146,368 among these amounts, from November 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 201, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with Sejong Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S-type Savings Bank”), setting a loan of KRW 90,00,000, interest rate of KRW 17.2% on June 30, 2012, and interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 25% on June 30, 201.

B. The instant loan agreement changed on June 28, 2012 to 7.2% and extended the lending period until June 28, 2015.

C. On February 2, 2016, the Sejong Savings Bank transferred the claims for loans under the instant loan agreement to the Plaintiff. On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by serving the notice of assignment of claims and the notice of assignment of claims as of March 10, 2016, or by serving the original copy of the instant payment order.

The principal of the loan agreement as of February 2, 2016 is KRW 83,146,368, and unpaid interest is KRW 820,073.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lending period of the loan agreement of this case expires, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of 83,966,441 won (=interest of KRW 83,146,368 and interest of KRW 820,073) and interest of KRW 83,146,368 among these amounts, as requested by the plaintiff, from November 19, 2016 to the day of full payment, from the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order of this case is served.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that he did not receive the notice of the loss of interest within the time limit from the Sejong Savings Bank. However, since the obligation under the loan agreement of this case has already expired and the due date has already arrived, it is not necessary to notify the other time limit of loss of interest.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.