1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,670,122 as well as to the plaintiff on June 11, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2009, the Defendant issued to C a certificate of borrowing that “the Defendant would borrow KRW 5,000,000 from C and pay it up to September 4, 2009” (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”).

B. On May 24, 2017, C transferred credit based on the loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) to the Plaintiff. On June 7, 2017, C notified the Defendant by content-certified mail on behalf of C of the Plaintiff.

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

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim in this case constitutes a trust of lawsuit and is unlawful.

In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim mainly takes place for the purpose of litigation, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be deemed null and void. Whether it is the main purpose of litigation shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and method of concluding the assignment contract, interval between the transfer contract and

(2) On December 21, 1996, the Plaintiff received a payment order from the above court on March 8, 2005, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against D, who is his spouse, under Seoul Southern District Court 2005 tea3589, with a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of pleadings as to this case’s health care room and evidence Nos. 1 through 4; and (b) the Plaintiff received a payment order at a rate of 25% per annum from October 30, 1996 to December 21, 1997; and (c) the Plaintiff received a payment order at a rate of 30% per annum from the next day to December 21, 1997.