Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The summary of the assertion has been borrowed and repaid from the Defendants or using the Defendants’ account in the name of the Defendants while operating the pawned Hall from January 11, 2018.

However, the loan repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants was repaid in excess of the loan principal and interest by the Plaintiff, such as exceeding 25% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act at the time, which is the highest interest rate under the said Act, and thus, the Defendants shall return 346,574,000 won which the

Judgment

In the return of unjust enrichment from the payment, the claimant for the return of unjust enrichment shall be liable to prove that the cause of the payment is specified and the cause of the payment is null and void or cancelled, and that the other party to the payment shall not prove that the payment has a legal cause.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da54283, May 14, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 98Da61593, Apr. 27, 1999; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41574, Oct. 23, 2008). According to each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number), the Plaintiff and the Defendants traded money several times from January 1, 2018; however, it is recognized that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not specify the amount that the Plaintiff borrowed or repaid from the Defendants out of the above money exceeds the principal and interest of the loan, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.