1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 3, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in purchasing BK5 vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15 million to the Defendant as security for the said vehicle. Around March 3, 2016, the instant loan agreement was formulated with the content that the terms and conditions of the loan are 412,910 won for monthly installments, 48 months for the installment period, 14.4% per annum for the interest rate of 48 months, and 25% per annum for the overdue interest rate of 30 days or less, and 27.9% for the overdue interest rate of 30 days or less per annum.

B. However, since the payment of the principal and interest of the instant vehicle under the above agreement was not properly made, the Plaintiff recovered the instant vehicle offered as security and appropriated the payment of KRW 7,516,40 by public sale, and the unpaid principal was KRW 7,974,741 as of January 12, 2017, KRW 337,540 for interest, KRW 31,750 for interest, KRW 31,750 for delay, and KRW 138,750 for fee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 8, 9, 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15 million to the Defendant in purchasing the instant vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of the outstanding principal and interest of interest 8,482,781 won and delay damages on the principal and interest of the loan to the Defendant.

As to this, the Defendant did not receive the above loan from the Plaintiff, and C received the loan by using the documents received from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not properly perform the procedure for identification, etc. at the time of the contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that it cannot claim payment of the principal and interest of loan to the Defendant.

B. The following points are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), namely, the second class debate on the instant vehicle under the name of the defendant around March 3, 2016.