A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 57,500,000 and its related KRW 5% per annum from May 25, 2018 to April 3, 2019.

A. On November 24, 2016, Plaintiff A entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the claim for the agreed amount of KRW 65 million related to the land in Pyeongtaek-si. The gist of Plaintiff A’s assertion that “if the Plaintiff pays KRW 50 million to the Defendant for the development investment of land outside Pyeongtaek-si and four parcels of land (hereinafter “D East land”), the Defendant shall return the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 50 million plus KRW 15 million until June 30, 2017, plus KRW 15 million until June 30, 2017.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall seek against the Defendant that KRW 65 million be paid for the principal amount of KRW 65 million and delay damages amount of KRW 1,20,000,000,000 and KRW 500,000,000,0000,000,0000,000 won were to be paid to the Defendant with the entire statement and arguments as to KRW 1,50,016.

The title of the above document is “a loan” and the expression “loan” is used for the payment of KRW 50 million, and the core substance of an investment agreement distinct from a loan for consumption is whether profit arises and the principal is guaranteed. However, according to the above document, the Plaintiff can finally receive a refund of the amount calculated by adding a certain amount to the principal regardless of the occurrence of profit arising from the development project, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement in the document is a monetary loan agreement, and the amount of KRW 50 million is a loan and profit, KRW 15 million as interest.

Therefore, the above agreement is governed by the provisions on the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017). Therefore, the part exceeding 25% per annum, which is the interest rate among profits.