1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,403,039 and KRW 31,677,188 among them, from June 15, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2018, the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on June 9, 2018 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and agreed to purchase used cars (vehicle No. E) of the New FFFFFG vehicle (hereinafter “instant automobile”) with the Plaintiff’s recommendation. On June 9, 2018, the Defendant written a written agreement on the payment of the loan agreement (hereinafter “instant special agreement”) and the loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) stating that the instant automobile, the loan principal of the instant automobile, the loan principal of the instant automobile, the interest rate of KRW 34,00,000, the interest rate of KRW 15.9% per annum, the period of 60 months per annum, and the interest rate of 18.9% per annum, which was concluded in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Defendant signed the agreement on June 9, 2018 on the payment of the loan to the H bank account (I) under the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On June 9, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 34,000,00 to the said Hbank account pursuant to the instant loan agreement.

On April 30, 2019, the Defendant delayed the repayment of the principal and interest under the instant loan agreement, thereby losing the benefit of time.

Meanwhile, the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 34,403,039, totaling KRW 2,725,821, including principal and interest, KRW 31,677,188 as of June 14, 2018, and overdue interest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Defendant did not receive the instant loans from the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed, the Defendant’s judgment on the instant safety defense is against the purport that the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed.

However, in litigation for performance, a person who asserts as a performance right holder is qualified as the plaintiff, and the person who is asserted as a performance right holder from him is qualified as the defendant. Thus, the above grounds of the defendant's assertion are only grounds to be judged as a claim within the merits, and it is not a matter to be determined as a party's standing. Thus, the above defendant's defense

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) the determination of the cause of the claim is deemed to have been duly formed;