1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 22,315,010 and KRW 14,255,92 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 22,315,01 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 18,00,000.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

On March 2, 2004, Han Bank Co., Ltd.: (a) added interest to the Defendant 30,000,000 to the base interest rate of 3.70% per annum; (b) applied the overdue interest rate of less than 3 months; (c) 17% per annum if the overdue interest rate is less than 3 months; and (d) 19% per annum if the overdue interest rate is more than 3 months; and (c) granted loans after

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The instant loan claims were transferred on June 11, 2009 to Lulsian Corporation, as Lulsian Corporation on June 24, 2009, to Luls Corporation on June 24, 2009, to Luls Corporation on June 22, 201, to Luls Corporation on June 22, 201, and to the Future Savings Bank on October 10, 2013.

On November 7, 2013, the Future Savings Bank, a corporation, entrusted the power of notification of the assignment of claims from each of the above transferor, and notified the defendant of the above assignment of claims.

C. On April 30, 2013, the future savings bank, a corporation, was declared bankrupt by this Court No. 2013Hahap54, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy of the future savings bank, a corporation on the same day.

The loan claim of this case as of June 18, 2014 is the remaining principal of KRW 14,255,922 and KRW 8,059,088 until June 17, 2014.

2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining principal of the instant loan claim KRW 22,315,010 (i.e., the remaining principal of KRW 14,255,922 and KRW 8,059,088) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from June 18, 2014 to the date of full payment of the remaining principal of KRW 14,255,922.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendant to pay the above recognized amount.