The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 39,371,649 and KRW 38,612,278 among them, per annum from August 20, 2020 to the day of full payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff extended a loan to the defendant on July 15, 2019 at the interest rate of 11.9% per annum, interest rate of 14.9% per annum, interest rate of 14.9% per annum, interest rate of 60 months per annum, and interest rate of 60 months for the lending period. The defendant delayed repayment of principal and interest under the above lending agreement and lost the benefit of the lending period. The balance of principal and interest as of August 19, 2020 is KRW 39,371,649 ( principal and interest amount of KRW 38,612,278).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 14.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from August 20, 2020 to the date of full payment with respect to the total amount of 39,371,649 won and the principal amount of 38,612,278 won under the loan agreement.

2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant deceivings the defendant that C will obtain a loan under the name of the defendant to pay the loan on the face of the purchase of the motor vehicle and pay the profits from the operation of the motor vehicle by operating the motor vehicle. It argues that even though the defendant purchased the motor vehicle with the loan from the plaintiff and delivered it to C, C did not pay the loan to the third party, and the plaintiff did not accurately understand the value of the motor vehicle in the course of the loan and did not obtain accurate understanding of the value of the motor vehicle and made an unreasonable loan in consultation with C regardless

However, the Defendant is a person who has completed the signature and certification by means of an authorized certificate at the time of entering into the loan contract of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff appears to have undergone the procedure of identification, etc. during the loan of this case, and that the statement of No. 1 No.

Even if the defendant had concluded a loan contract with the plaintiff according to C's deception, it is merely that.