1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 290,445,356 as well as KRW 261,722,027 among them, a year from June 27, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”).

The credit department: The maximum amount of loans extended on April 15, 2015: The date when the loan is terminated on April 16, 2016: The interest rate on April 16, 2016 (the date when the loan is terminated thereafter shall be changed to April 15, 2017): 8.9% overdue interest rate: The overdue interest rate under Article 1(1) of the Credit Transaction Agreement shall be calculated by adding the annual interest rate per overdue period to the agreed interest rate, but the overdue interest rate for each overdue period shall be 10% per annum if the overdue interest rate for each overdue period exceeds six months, and 12% per annum if the overdue interest rate for each overdue period exceeds six months.

Repayment method: It shall be freely repaid, but shall be redeemed in full at once prior to the expiration or expiration date of the first installment period, and shall be redeemed in full at the expiration date of the extension

B. Under the loan transaction agreement of this case, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 157,100,00 to the Defendant on November 22, 2016 and KRW 157,10,000 as of November 24, 2016. The sum of the principal and interest on the unpaid loan as of June 26, 2017 is KRW 290,445,356 (i.e., interest on KRW 261,72,02,0270 on the loaned principal, KRW 1,560,632, KRW 23,041,546, and KRW 4,121,151).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20.9% per annum from May 27, 2017 to the date of full payment as to the amount of unpaid principal and interest of 290,445,356 won and principal 261,72,0270 won under the loan transaction agreement of this case.

B. B, which was operating a security loan brokerage business with the Defendant’s alleged livestock products, etc. as security, based on the Defendant’s assertion of false conspiracy or the name lending claim, entered into the instant loan transaction agreement under the Defendant’s name and used the loan, and C’s employee C uses the Plaintiff’s loan restriction provisions.