1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 103,635,769 as well as KRW 101,940,00 among them, from August 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of the grounds for the application as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by the statements stated in Gap evidence 1 and 2

(However, the interest rate on delay is stipulated as “25% per annum” in the evidence No. 1, and the evidence No. 2 states “10.8% per annum,” and thus, 10.8% per annum is recognized as interest rate between the plaintiff and the defendant). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10.8% per annum for the principal and interest of KRW 103,635,769 as well as the principal and interest of KRW 101,940,000 from August 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.

(hereinafter “instant loan obligations”). Of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay, the portion exceeding 10.8% per annum is rejected for the foregoing reasons.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense is that the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant is a collective loan for D-7 hotel E located in Jeju, a corporation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Execution Company”) sold to the Defendant.

The F, a corporation entrusted with the management of hotel sale and payment from the executor, received the intermediate payment of the above sales contract directly from the plaintiff.

The above contract for sale was cancelled due to the cause of the event, and the defendant acquired the obligation to return the sale price to the executor.

The defendant transferred to the plaintiff the claim for the refund of the sale price to the executor according to the provisions of the sale contract.

(hereinafter “Assignment of Claim”). The Plaintiff may directly exercise the claim for the refund of the sale price, acquired by the assignment of claim of this case, to the executor or trust company.

The assignment of the instant claim constitutes a payment in lieu of the instant loan obligation, thereby extinguishing the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff.

B. We examine whether the assignment of claim of this case constitutes payment in kind for the debt of this case.