1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 61,815,140 as well as KRW 60,00,000 among them, from May 22, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant at the rate of 2.83% per annum on July 10, 2018, and at the rate of 15% per annum on July 10, 2018, and paid KRW 60,000,000 for the loan.

B. At the time of the instant loan agreement, the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would lose the benefit of the time limit for repayment of all obligations and repay the loan obligations when delay takes place at any time.

C. On or after January 9, 2017, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of interest, and on April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the above-mentioned benefit and notified the Defendant of the legal procedure in advance.

On May 21, 2017, the Defendant did not repay the above loan obligations. As of May 21, 2017, the Defendant’s total of KRW 61,815,140 (i.e., the principal of the loan from January 10, 201 to May 21, 2017) is the total of KRW 61,815,140 (i.e., the interest from January 10, 201 to May 21, 2017).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the aforementioned facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 61,815,140 of the principal and interest of the loan and KRW 60,000 of the principal and interest of the loan, plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the rate of delayed damages from May 22, 2017 to the agreed delay damages.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Suwon District Court 2017Da1018952 was in progress, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept since it did not affect the litigation procedure solely on the grounds that the Defendant filed an application for the individual rehabilitation procedure.

3. As such, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.