1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,906,006 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff, on January 25, 2012, lent KRW 35,00,00 to the Defendant for a period of repayment of KRW 35,00,00 to the Defendant on January 25, 2013 and April 5, 2013, respectively. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 41,092,50,00 as indicated in the calculation table of the amount appropriated as the principal and interest on the loan, throughout the period from February 24, 2012 to July 1, 2013, may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 41,092,

On the other hand, the interest rate under the above loan agreement is 54% per annum. The highest interest rate applicable to the above loan agreement is 30% per annum pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25375, Jun. 11, 2014) and the part exceeding the above amount is null and void. Thus, if the defendant's repayment is appropriated for the interest and principal under the above highest interest rate in accordance with the method of statutory appropriation for payment in accordance with Articles 479 and 477 of the Civil Act, the result is the same as the calculation table of the amount appropriated. Ultimately, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 3,906,06 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum that the plaintiff seeks within the above highest interest rate within the scope of the above highest interest rate from November 1, 2016 to the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case as requested by the plaintiff.

2. On the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant paid the full amount of the loan.

However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the agreement that the interest shall not be paid separately from the plaintiff after the above loan.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.