A. From February 17, 2017 to August 5, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,335,166,891 in total on 98 occasions from the Defendant, as indicated in the “the details of tea and reimbursement” in the attached Form, and from 8% to 12% in each month, and from February 24, 2017 to August 4, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant a total of KRW 3,805,206,00 in total on 117 occasions, as shown in the attached Table.

B. However, the above interest agreement exceeds 25% per annum as stipulated in 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) and the excess is null and void. As such, the portion repaid by the Plaintiff in excess of lawful interest is appropriated for the principal of the loan, and the original is extinguished, the Plaintiff may claim the return thereof.

C. Inasmuch as there was no agreement or designation on the repayment of debt between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the amount repaid by the Plaintiff is in accordance with Article 479(1) of the Civil Act, as indicated in the “the details of rent and repayment,” and thus, the said loan was entirely extinguished in order of the interest and principal of the said loan, and the Plaintiff paid the total amount exceeding KRW 456,738,626.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 456,738,626 won as unjust enrichment and delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as requested by the plaintiff from June 6, 2018 to June 28, 2018, which is the day following the day when the copy of the claim for unjust enrichment and the application for modification of the cause of claim was served on the plaintiff's expression of intent to claim unjust enrichment from June 4, 2018.

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The part dismissing part of the Plaintiff is from January 14, 2018, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case against the Defendant’s unjust enrichment.