A. From January 31, 2016 to January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 326,560,000 in total from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”), and repaid the Defendant a total of KRW 466,135,00.

B. As above, KRW 139,575,00 (=466,135,00 won - 326,560,000) in excess of the leased principal was paid as interest.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the portion paid in excess of the interest under the Interest Limitation Act out of the amount repaid to the Plaintiff with respect to the instant loan is null and void, the Defendant is liable to return the remaining KRW 146,808,208 to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. (i) Even if the interest exceeds the maximum interest rate under Defendant 1’s Interest Limitation Act, if the Plaintiff paid it at will, it is not null and void or may not claim the return thereof.

The Plaintiff borrowed the instant loan with the intent to use it for illegal causes, such as Internet gambling, stock investment, and bond return, and also borrowed money by deceiving the Defendant, and the illegality of the Plaintiff is higher, and thus the Defendant’s repayment received does not constitute unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the loan in this case is subject to the Interest Limitation Act as a contract for monetary lending and subject to Article 2(1) of the same Act and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017); the maximum interest rate of 25% per annum is applicable; the portion exceeding the maximum interest rate in the interest agreement is null and void (Article 2(3)); and the amount equivalent to the excess interest paid where the debtor voluntarily pays the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate is appropriated for the principal, and the original is extinguished.