1.(a)

All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant B and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C are dismissed.

(b).

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4:

On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000,000 from Defendant B, and paid KRW 12,600,000 per month to Defendant B nine times from September 3, 2013 to May 7, 2014, and paid KRW 20,00,000 to Defendant B on May 7, 2014.

The Plaintiff received KRW 232,400,000 from Defendant C on March 31, 2014, KRW 23,000,000 on April 18, 2014, KRW 20,000 on July 16, 2017, KRW 80,000 on October 31, 2014, and paid KRW 232,40,000 on April 31, 2016 to Defendant C over 42 occasions from March 31, 2014 to September 1, 2016.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendants at 7% per annum (84% per annum) and paid the Defendants interest exceeding the maximum interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act.

The contractual interest rate exceeding the maximum interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act shall be null and void, and where the debtor has paid the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated for the original, and where the original is extinguished, the return thereof may be requested.

Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant C have the obligation to return each excess amount paid to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment after deducting the interest and principal based on the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from the amount paid to them by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants did not borrow money from the Defendants, but received investment money, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit.

Meanwhile, since the Plaintiff did not pay the investment profit to Defendant C after September 2016, Defendant C entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C on the grounds of delay due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff.