1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 42,163,568 and the amount of KRW 24,889,140 from April 10, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 3, 2004, the Han-dong Saemaeul Community Fund (hereinafter “Sule Community Fund”) concluded a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant on each of the loans extended at the rate of 22% per annum of the changed interest rate and damages for delay (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. On May 31, 2012, the community credit cooperatives notified the Defendant of the transfer of the principal and interest of the loan, and the said company transferred the said principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2013, respectively.

C. Under the instant loan agreement, the principal and interest obligation under the loan agreement reaches KRW 42,163,568 (the principal of the loan plus KRW 24,889,140, 174,428) as of March 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, a transferee of the above principal and interest of loan pursuant to the loan agreement of this case, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 10, 2013 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, a transferee of the above principal and interest of loan of this case, and 24,89,140 won of the principal and interest of loan of this case.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the loan agreement of this case was concluded with the community credit cooperatives and the defendant's name under the understanding with a view to avoiding the limitation on the lending limit of the actual debtor B, and thus invalid as it constitutes a false conspiracy.

The testimony of the witness B is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and even if the loan agreement of this case was a juristic act that constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy as the defendant's argument, the plaintiff is based on the loan agreement of this case from community credit cooperatives as seen earlier.