1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. On October 23, 2001, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement (the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called loan agreement”; hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”) in the manner that the lending limit was set at KRW 2,00,000, and claims for the payment exceeding the balance in the above bank’s ordinary deposit account under the name of the Defendant, within the above lending limit, in which the Defendant treated the loans to the Defendant of the above bank as the loans to the Defendant of the above bank within the above lending limit, and the agreed delay damages rate is 38% per annum (the interest rate set by the above bank).

According to the loan contract of this case, the Defendant continued to use the head of the Tong in the name of the Defendant, and was unable to fully repay the principal and interest from around 2007 to 2008, and was unable to fully repay the principal and interest on two occasions in around 2008.

As of June 30, 2009, the principal of the instant loan was KRW 1,657,614.

On the other hand, the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Daejeon District Court 2008 Daejeon District Court 13465 and decided to authorize the repayment plan on July 9, 2008, and the table of individual rehabilitation creditors confirmed according to the above authorized repayment plan stated the claims based on the loan contract in this case.

However, the above individual rehabilitation procedure was abolished on August 5, 2009 after the repayment plan was approved.

On the other hand, on November 30, 2012, the above bank transferred its claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims from the above bank and completed the notification of the assignment of claims on or before January 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, barring special circumstances, shall aggregate the principal and delay damages to the plaintiff who acquired the claim for the loan of this case as follows.