A. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 550 million to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant loan”); (b) written a statement of performance stating that “The interest on the instant loan shall be KRW 100 million: KRW 100,000; the repayment date; and (c) February 28, 2013; and (d) the interest on KRW 100,000; and (e) the interest on the instant loan shall be 10% per annum; and (e) Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s debt owed to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 45 million totaling of KRW 15 million on December 14, 2012 as interest on the instant loan, KRW 5 million on March 21, 2013, KRW 5 million on May 7, 2013, KRW 10 million on February 27, 2014, and KRW 45 million on March 28, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants borrowed KRW 550 million from the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants paid KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff. However, since there is a dispute over the scope of interest or delay damages that the Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff, it is examined as to this.

A. The Defendants asserted that the portion exceeding the Interest Limitation Act out of the interest KRW 100,000,000, which is the maturity date of the instant loan as determined by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, is null and void. As such, 30% per annum, which is the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from the date of the instant loan to February 28, 2013, should be applied, and thereafter, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants should be applied.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that even if the above interest rate exceeds the Interest Limitation Act, the agreement on the instant loan should be deemed to be 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, not 10% per annum.

(b) judgment;