A. On June 30, 2009, Plaintiff A decided to take over “F” located in Sungnam-si E (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from D at KRW 150,000,000 and paid KRW 110,000 as part of the acquisition price to D.

B. D around July 15, 2009, the Defendant had the obligation of KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 50,000,000 to G.

In addition, the lease deposit paid by D to the lessor of the instant restaurant was fully deducted from the overdue rent of KRW 50,000,000.

C. Under the circumstance that both Plaintiff A, Defendant and G claimed the right to the instant restaurant, the Defendant repaid KRW 50,000,000 to D’s debt to G on behalf of the Defendant, and borne KRW 50,000,000 as the lease deposit.

Accordingly, with respect to the restaurant of this case, the lease contract was made between the plaintiff A and the defendant as joint lessee, and thereafter the plaintiff A operated the restaurant of this case independently.

Plaintiff

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff B, the husband of A and his husband, issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of 50,000,000, and made and issued the instant authentic deed.

E. From July 17, 2009 to February 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs paid a total of KRW 235,000 to the Defendant.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Plaintiff A merely prepared the instant notarial deed in order to secure it by borrowing KRW 50,00,000 from the Defendant as the lease deposit of the instant restaurant. The Defendant continued to threaten the Plaintiffs and received money exceeding the principal and interest calculated with the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. Accordingly, the Defendant must return KRW 178,173,791, which the Plaintiffs paid in excess of the principal and interest, as unjust enrichment. Since the above notarial loan was fully repaid, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be dismissed.2) The Defendant’s Plaintiffs are 10,00,000 = from the Defendant.