A. On November 29, 2006, Plaintiff A loaned KRW 22,050,000 to Defendant C at a rate of 66% per annum, and Defendant B guaranteed that.

The Plaintiff acquired each claim against the Defendants from A and the Defendants, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,050,000 and the agreed interest or delay damages.

B. The Defendants did not borrow money from A on November 29, 2006.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The interest paid in excess of the limited interest rate under the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) is null and void.

Meanwhile, the purport of Article 8(2) of the Credit Business Act is to prevent evasion of the law used by a credit service provider as a means to escape the above Act from collecting money from an obligor under the name of honorarium, discount, commission, mutual aid money, delay interest, advance interest, etc. Thus, if it is related to lending and borrowing of money between a credit service provider and an obligor regardless of the pretext thereof and can be seen as a consideration for lending and borrowing of money, it constitutes a prior-interest mutual aid. Therefore, if a credit service provider receives prior deduction from a loan, it constitutes a prior-interest mutual aid. The issue of whether the prior-interest exceeds the interest rate stipulated in the Credit Business Act, excluding prior-interest deduction, based on the amount actually received by the obligor, and on the basis of the “interest based on the limited interest rate for the period from the date of the loan to the due date, including the amount actually received by the obligor,” the “excess interest deduction amount” should be determined depending on whether the prior-interest deduction amount exceeds that.