1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 25, 2008, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loans”) entered into a contract with the Defendant to lend KRW 375,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loans”) at the interest rate of 11% per annum and interest rate of 24% per annum.

B. On March 25, 2009, the Defendant did not perform its duty to pay interest on the instant loan, thereby losing the benefit of time for repayment.

C. The principal and interest of the instant loan as of December 23, 2013 is KRW 383,398,836 (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 131,941,176 and interest of KRW 251,457,660).

The claim for the instant loan was transferred in sequence to the Korean Loel Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd. on June 17, 2014, and to the succeeding intervenor on November 24, 2014.

The notification of the assignment of claims was made by content-certified mail at the time of each transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff transferred the claim for the loan of this case after the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case.

The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking payment on the premise that the Plaintiff is the obligee of the instant loan is without merit.

B. (1) According to the facts of determination as to the claim of the succeeding intervenor, the defendant is obligated to pay to the succeeding intervenor delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreed delay damages rate of 383,398,836 won and 131,941,176 won of the principal and interest of the instant case, and 131,941,176 won from December 24, 2013 to the date of full payment.

(2) As to the defense, the Defendant asserts that the husband B paid 100,000,000 won under an agreement with the Plaintiff in cash and transferred the remainder to the Plaintiff with the payment of the instant loan in subrogation of the Defendant. Thus, the Intervenor’s claim for the instant loan had already been extinguished prior to the transfer by the succeeding intervenor.

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the whole argument, B.