1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 44,872,460 and KRW 43,529,543 among them, 25% per annum from June 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2.

(1) On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a credit card loan agreement with the Defendant that the interest rate and overdue interest rate should be determined by the Plaintiff.

(2) After March 26, 2016, the Defendant delayed the payment of the principal amounting to 43,529,543 won and interest 1,182,568 won and interest 1,182,568 won. The overdue interest accrued from March 26, 2016 to June 2, 2016 on the principal of the loan is KRW 160,349 and the subsequent overdue interest rate is 25% per annum.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 44,872,460 (= KRW 43,529,543 KRW 1,182,568 KRW 160,349) and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from June 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s argument that the above loans were purchased in installments as to a motor vehicle, and the Defendant’s used cars B received the delivery of a motor vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s repayment of the principal and interest was delayed after taking over the above loans.

B. Article 454 of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where a third party assumes an obligation based on a contract with the obligor and discharges the obligor’s obligation, it shall take effect upon the obligee’s consent. Thus, in cases where the obligee’s consent is not obtained, even if the obligor and the underwriter agree to assume an obligation based on a discharge, it shall not take effect only on the assumption of performance, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da88303, May 24, 2012). Whether B received the Defendant’s above principal and interest of loan and received the Plaintiff’s consent thereto, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.