1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is obligated to borrow approximately KRW 14 billion from June 2015 to April 2017, as indicated in the attached Form of Trade Adjustment Table, from around June 2015 to around 2017, and repay approximately KRW 15.1 billion to the Defendant as principal and interest. The Plaintiff’s payment of the amount to the Defendant in excess of the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act reaches KRW 647,604,859. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above interest paid in excess of the interest rate under Article 2(4) of the Interest Limitation Act to the Plaintiff. As part of the claim, the Defendant’s assertion that money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not based on a monetary loan contract, but on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim was made in collusion with the original Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the same shall not be justified.

B. It is insufficient to find the fact that a monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was based on a monetary loan contract only on the sole descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and 12, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise.

Rather, even though it is not bound by the facts established in a criminal trial in a civil trial, it shall be deemed that the facts established in the judgment in a criminal case related to which it has already been established should be considered as a decent evidence unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da37690, May 22, 1992). In particular, the fact that a criminal judgment which has already become final and conclusive on the same facts is found guilty cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 197), Gap evidence 2, 13 through 17, Eul evidence 1, and 2, and the purport of this court’s substantial facts and the entire arguments.