2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court.

A. The Defendant asserted that “the Defendant lent KRW 19 million to the Plaintiffs on August 20, 1996, and the interest thereon was set at KRW 380,000 per annum (25% per annum)” (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs in Incheon District Court 2016Gau47286.

B. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of performance recommendation on July 21, 2016 to the effect that “the Defendant jointly and severally provided to the Plaintiff with 19 million won and with 24% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the decision of performance recommendation of this case”). The said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive.

C. Meanwhile, from 1996 to 2009, the Plaintiffs remitted a total of KRW 38.20,000 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, Gap evidence No. 13-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that "the interest on the loan of this case is not repaid to the plaintiffs, and only the principal is repaid," and the plaintiffs remitted the total amount of KRW 34 million to the defendant by September 8, 2009.

Therefore, since the instant loan has ceased to exist in full due to repayment, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case is unreasonable.

B. (1) As alleged by the Plaintiffs, regarding (i) whether the Defendant exempted the portion of interest on the instant loan as alleged by the Plaintiffs; (ii) the Defendant appears to have failed to make a demand to the Plaintiffs for reimbursement for about seven years after 2009; and (ii) the amount of the money remitted to the Defendant is about two times the amount of the loan.

However, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant exempted the Plaintiffs from the interest rate of the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the interest has been exempted.