1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

On January 8, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 200,000,00, respectively, by setting the interest rate of 13% per annum, and the delay delay interest rate of KRW 19% per annum from the Swiss Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Saving Bank”) as a general loan subject, the maturity date of repayment as January 8, 201, and the repayment period as January 8, 201.

B. The Defendant repaid the interest on the above loans to the Savings Bank up to March 23, 2009, and repaid the principal amount of KRW 200,000,000 on June 29, 2010.

C. On April 29, 2014, the Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2014Hahap53, and the Plaintiff appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy by the above court taken over the instant legal proceedings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the interest accrued from March 24, 2009 to June 28, 2010 and the expenses paid by the savings bank for debt collection, if any, to the Plaintiff.

B. On June 29, 2010, the Defendant claimed that the Defendant extinguished all of the Defendant’s debt of the instant loan against the Defendant, since the Defendant repaid the principal amount of KRW 200,000,000 to the Savings Bank, and was exempted from all of the remainder interest and delay damages, etc. from the Savings Bank.

As to the background of the instant loan, the Defendant first stated in the first instance court on the credit transaction agreement of No. 1, and issued a seal and a certificate of seal to the same student, but did not permit the loan. In so doing, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant had changed his assertion that he had affixed a seal and a certificate of seal on the ground that it was necessary for the same student to obtain the loan, and that the loan of this case was modified again in the first instance trial.