1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 66,659,395 and KRW 64,461,017 among them, a year from April 26, 2019 to the day of full payment.

No dispute exists, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,00 to the Defendant on September 26, 2016, with the rate of 6.5% per annum, and interest rate of delay 9.5% per annum, respectively. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of April 10, 2019 that the interest of time was lost due to the occurrence of a cause under Article 8(3)6 of the Framework Act on Credit Transactions, and then notified the Defendant in writing, and at that time the above notification was delivered to the Defendant. Article 8(3)6 of the Credit Terms and Conditions provides that the obligee shall urge the obligor to pay in writing at the time of the registration of overdue information, etc. among credit transaction information under the Credit Information Management Rules, and the obligor shall lose the obligee’s interest of time limit and bear the obligation to pay it immediately after the lapse of the time limit set by the obligee.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 9.5% per annum from April 26, 2019 to the date of full payment, with respect to the unpaid principal of KRW 64,461,017, the remaining principal of KRW 1,942,951, and damages for delay of KRW 255,427) and the principal of KRW 64,461,017, barring special circumstances.

The defendant presented his will to repay the total amount of the loan by February 18, 2019, but the demand from the plaintiff to redeem the total amount on the ground of the loss of the benefit of time was not reached a consultation. The secured vehicle for the loan is a livelihood-type vehicle and the total amount of the loan is too harsh.

However, even if the defendant was notified in writing that he had lost the benefit of a policeman on April 2019, the ground for occurrence does not resolve even before the date of the closing of argument in this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the request for the payment order in this case is unreasonable merely because it was the defendant'

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and it is so ordered.