A. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) determined and lent KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 2.5% per month; (b) paid only KRW 39 million after deducting a monthly interest of KRW 1 million; and (c) C jointly guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation against the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

Plaintiff

In addition, from August 30, 2011, C repaid to the Defendant the same money as indicated in the “payment” column of the attached Table of Satisfaction of Performance as of each date indicated in the annexed Table of Satisfaction of Performance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 16, 18, 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that either the Plaintiff or C paid the Defendant as above, thereby paying the interest exceeding the interest rate applied to the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 26,138,017 and the delay damages therefrom, by making payment in excess of KRW 26,138,017 by May 27, 2019, even if the principal was fully repaid.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the amount repaid by the Plaintiff is limited to KRW 1 million on October 12, 201, KRW 8 million on October 201, KRW 201, KRW 25 million on October 25, 201, KRW 32 million on November 3, 201, and KRW 10 million on February 15, 201, KRW 32 million on the remainder of the amount repaid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case is without merit, even if the amount repaid by C was added to the amount repaid by C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case is without merit.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s repayment amount was examined, and the repayment amount Nos. 1 through 10 of the annexed table of appropriation was deposited into D or E’s deposit account, not in the Defendant’s name, but in the name of D or E. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 5, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the instant loan was made E.