1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 3,497,600 won to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff and its corresponding amount.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 3, 2002, female Cr. Dr. written an application for the instant payment order with interest of KRW 3,500,000 per annum, and interest rate of KRW 131.4% per annum, and interest rate of KRW 160.6% per annum, which was set at 48.54% per annum, but it did not originally set the interest rate and interest rate of loan and interest rate for delay. However, it did not agree with the purport of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users after the above loan, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. It did not agree to the effect that the loan interest rate and interest rate for delay were adjusted downward

On January 3, 2007, the repayment of principal and interest on the 26th day of each month of repayment method and the expiration date of the repayment period.

B. On August 31, 2007, R&W Capital Co., Ltd. merged female clocks, etc.

Since then, R&I Co., Ltd. changed its trade name to “A&P social company,” and “A&P social loan company,” in sequence.

C. The social loan company E&P transferred the above loan claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On February 22, 2014, the Plaintiff, while proceeding in the instant lawsuit, transferred the above loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant paid the principal and interest of the above loan, which remains after February 2, 2002, is KRW 3,497,600.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 9, 11, and 12; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,497,600 and the interest or delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum for the plaintiff within the scope of delay rate from February 2, 2002 to the date of full payment.

B. In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the above loan claim (acquisition fee claim) expired by the statute of limitations, but the fact that the due date for repayment of the above loan claim was January 3, 2007 is the same as seen earlier, and that the Plaintiff was the prior owner of the loan that was five years after the lapse of the five years thereafter.