A. The Defendant conspired with K and K to engage in unregistered credit business, the Defendant raised necessary funds and decided to share the role of lending money directly to the neighboring persons, and borrowed money (hereinafter “instant lending”) and received reimbursement as follows:

On April 1, 2012, 200,000 won on April 1, 2012, 1.2 million won on April 28, 2012, 200,000 won on April 28, 2012, 200,000 won on April 6, 2012, 200,000 won on April 16, 2012, 320,000 won on April 13, 2012, one million won on April 13, 2012, 40,000 won on April 1, 2012, D 200,000 won on April 6, 2012, 1.6 million won on April 1, 2012, 200,000 won on July 1, 2016, 200 won on July 1, 2017

B. On August 26, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 4 million won in the case of violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users and the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, which became final and conclusive on September 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4, part of witness K's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014), the maximum interest rate under the contract on lending and borrowing of money at the time of the instant lending is limited to 30% per annum.

Meanwhile, Article 2(4) of the Interest Limitation Act provides, “Where an obligor has voluntarily paid interest exceeding the maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated for the principal and where the principal is extinguished, the return thereof may be claimed.”

Based on the above facts and the legal principles as seen earlier, the Selection C, D, and E.