1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance, delivered the Plaintiff totaling KRW 85 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) from April 12, 2011 to June 27, 2012, and received KRW 12,1970,000 from the Plaintiff during the period from June 13, 2011 to September 1, 2014.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the Plaintiff to pay the instant money invested or lent to the Plaintiff as Jeonju District Court 2015Gahap518 and interest or delay damages thereon, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the ground that “The Defendant’s loan was KRW 5.4 million, which was repaid on January 22, 2014, as indicated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance, was appropriated for KRW 151,451 as interest accrued until that time and KRW 4,187,859 as principal and interest accrued until that time.”

Accordingly, while the Defendant appealed in Gwangju High Court (former District Court) 2016Na12774, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on September 21, 2017. The Defendant appealed in Supreme Court Decision 2017Da271438, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on January 31, 2018, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant litigation”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed the instant money from the Defendant, and paid interest to the Defendant exceeding 30%, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest exceeding 30% per annum with unjust enrichment, 12,360,690 won and delay damages.

B. The Defendant invested not in the Plaintiff’s lending of the instant money, so there is no room to apply the Interest Limitation Act thereto.

Even if the obligation to return unjust enrichment is recognized to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving unjust enrichment prohibited by the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business.