1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,69,251 and KRW 39,534,816 among them, 27.9% per annum from September 7, 2017 to the date of full payment.

On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant at the interest rate of KRW 17.9% per annum, the loan period of KRW 48 months, the repayment method of the principal and interest in equal installments, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum.

However, from July 4, 2017, the defendant lost the benefit of time due to the overdue repayment of interest.

In September 6, 2017, the full repayment principal is KRW 39,534,816, and the full repayment interest rate is KRW 2,043,232.

【Evidence Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant interest accrued at the interest rate in arrears from September 7, 2017 on the sum of the principal and interest of KRW 41,69,251 and the principal of KRW 39,534,816.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that Nonparty B was aware of this fact as a real borrower, but in general, who is the party to the contract, constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010). In this case, a loan contract was concluded according to the Defendant’s intent stated in the medium and misleading debate application and agreement, and the existence and content of the loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are recognized in accordance with the language and text of the loan contract. Thus, the above argument

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.