1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 155,289,310, and KRW 31,955,553 among them, from March 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd.: (a) around June 5, 2012, 9.5% per annum interest rate of KRW 35 million to the Defendant; (b) interest rate of KRW 25 million per annum; (c) interest rate of KRW 25% per annum; and (d) January 31, 2013; (b) Hyundai Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant loan”); (c) transferred the instant loan loan to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013; and (d) notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the loan; (d) the principal and interest of the instant loan claim was KRW 15,289,310 as of March 17, 2017; and (e) there is no counter-proof evidence.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 155,289,310 as the obligation to take over, and the amount of KRW 31,95,553 as the principal of the loan, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 25% per annum from March 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

A. The defendant asserts that the period of prescription of the loan claim of this case has expired even after the lapse of the period of prescription.

However, as seen earlier, the maturity period of the instant loan loan loan was January 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order before the lapse of five years from that date. As such, the period of extinctive prescription cannot be deemed to have lapsed.

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

B. The defendant asserts that since the loan claim in this case is more interest than the principal, the plaintiff's claim in this case cannot be allowed as excessive collection.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay of the instant loan claim violates the principle of good faith.

Since it cannot be viewed as abuse of rights or abuse of rights, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be avoided only with the above reasons asserted by the defendant.

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

Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.