2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant on December 3, 2012 by setting the maturity of KRW 30,000 on December 3, 2012 and monthly interest 3%.

(hereinafter “instant loan”) b.

From March 2012 to April 2017, the Defendant paid part of the instant loan to the Plaintiff as indicated in the “payment date” column in the annexed calculation sheet of appropriation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that, since the Defendant merely repaid only a part of the interest on the instant loan and did not repay the principal amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the principal amount of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay. 2), the Defendant asserted that the instant loan obligation was extinguished by paying KRW 57,090,000 to the Plaintiff over 65 times from March 3, 2012 to April 29, 2017.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 2(1), (3), and (4) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014), the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing of money was 30% per annum (amended by Act No. 1227, Jul. 15, 2014; the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act, which was amended by Act No. 1227, changed to 25%.

(2) According to the legal principles seen earlier, the agreement on the instant loan is null and void in excess of the maximum interest rate, and where the obligor voluntarily pays the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated, and even if the obligor concludes a quasi-loan agreement or a novation agreement with respect to the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess, it shall not take effect on the portion of the amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998; 2012Da81203, Feb. 14, 2013).