부당이득금반환
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. During the period from July 1, 2010 to May 7, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 916,00,000 in total to the Plaintiff, as indicated in the “loan” column and “Self Accounting Date” column in the attached Table (each first day), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,242,16,000 in total to the Defendant, as indicated in the “Payment Date” column and “Payments” column in the same Table between July 12, 2010 and November 21, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 11, Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including evidence attached with serial numbers, and unless otherwise indicated; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff agreed to pay interest calculated at the rate of 0.2% per day when borrowing a total of KRW 916,00,000 from the Defendant.
(Non-term of payment) This constitutes “a monetary lending and lending contract” subject to the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same), and thus, the part of the said agreement, which stipulates interest exceeding 30% per annum, which is the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, is null and void.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 646,166,00 in total to the Defendant as principal and KRW 606,000,000 in total as principal and interest (However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 170,000,000 in total as principal and interest of loans Nos. 1, 2, 5, 12, and 16 of the attached Table on May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted that each of the above loans was 160,000,000,000 in total.
If the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess of 30% per annum is appropriated to the principal, the principal is extinguished in entirety with respect to most loans, and the Defendant is obliged to return the excess amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and some loans remain as the principal, but if the Defendant’s loan and the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment are offset, only the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment remains 22,796,190 won.
Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.