1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,01,393 and KRW 22,534,93 among them, from September 2, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3.

On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a new installment loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the loan principal of KRW 25,900,000, the loan term of KRW 60, the loan interest rate of KRW 11.9% per annum, the overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum.

The Defendant paid only KRW 3,365,061 as principal pursuant to the instant loan agreement and paid the remainder of principal and interest, but did not pay it, thereby losing the benefit of September 1, 2015 as to the obligation of the said loan.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from September 2, 2015 to the day of full payment to September 2, 2015 to the day of full payment as to KRW 22,534,939 (in South Korea, KRW 22,534,939, KRW 4539, KRW 28,001) and KRW 22,534,939 among them (i.e., KRW 25,900, KRW 365,061).

2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with, on August 27, 2015, that the Daegu District Court rendered a bankruptcy and application for immunity under the Daegu District Court Decision 2015Hadan3531 on the ground that the financial standing of the Defendant aggravated.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant stated the Plaintiff’s obligation of loans as a claim subject to bankruptcy and exemption at the time of applying for bankruptcy or exemption. Rather, according to the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s above obligation of loans against the Defendant was not entered in the above list of creditors.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.