1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,099,799 won and 28,311,628 won among them, from March 19, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) concluded an agreement on the loan of KRW 37,000,000 from the Plaintiff for a loan of KRW 36 months; (b) 24% per annum less than twice in arrears; (c) 25% per annum more than twice in arrears; and (d) from April 30, 2018, the Defendant borrowed the principal and interest at 17.9% per annum; and (c) concluded an agreement on the loan of KRW 37,00,000

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 37,00,000 according to the instant loan agreement, but did not pay the principal and interest, and lost the benefit of time on January 31, 2019.

On the other hand, the principal and interest of the instant loan is 3,09,799 won in total, including the principal amount of 28,311,628 won as of March 18, 2019 and overdue interest of 4,78,171 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17.9% per annum from March 19, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the base date for calculating the principal and interest of the loan pursuant to the loan agreement of this case, as to the principal and interest of 33,09,799 won and the principal of the loan of 28,311,628 won among them, except in extenuating circumstances.

(The plaintiff claimed damages for delay from February 1, 2019, but the basic date of the claim statement submitted by the plaintiff is March 18, 2019, and the above recognized portion is recognized, and the remaining claims are not accepted).

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should deduct part of the money through auction, etc. after collecting the used vehicles provided as security in accordance with the loan agreement of this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff recovered some of the money through an auction for the above used vehicles. Thus, the defendant's assertion premised on this is without merit without further review.

According to Gap evidence No. 4, with respect to the above used vehicles, Jeonju District Court DD.