1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,443,00 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from November 10, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff determined and lent to the Defendant KRW 50,000,000 per month interest rate of KRW 300,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) in total, KRW 47,000,000, September 30, 2016.

On December 7, 2016, C, the father of the Defendant, prepared a loan certificate stating that “The instant loan amounting to KRW 50,000,000,000, from December 7, 2016 to March 6, 2017, and paid KRW 300,000 per month interest,” and delivered it to the Plaintiff, thereby acquiring the instant loan obligations.

After that, C paid KRW 15,657,00 to the Plaintiff by July 2019.

The Plaintiff appropriated the said KRW 11,100,000 for interest (=300,000 x 37 months) from October 2016 to October 30, 2019, and appropriated the remainder of KRW 4,557,000 (=15,657,000 - 11,100,000) to repay the principal amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the leased principal (=5,443,00 won - 4,57,000 won - 4,57,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 10, 2019 to the day of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim was extinguished by C’s acquisition of the Defendant’s debt of the instant loan.

If the assumption of an obligation is overlapped, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the assumption of obligation as indicated in the contract to accept the obligation, and is deemed to have taken over the obligation overlapping if it is not clear whether the obligation is discharged or the overlapping transferee is acquired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem C to have taken over the obligation of this case overlappedly.

The defendant's assertion.