1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,171,187 and KRW 28,488,635 among them shall be annually from August 1, 2014 to the full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 201, the Plaintiff claimed a monetary loan to the Defendant, KRW 5 million on May 26, 201, and the same year

6.1. 5 million won, a total of KRW 20 million, KRW 30 million, and KRW 30 million were remitted on the 20th of the same month, and the 20.20th of the same month, which is the last date of remittance (by the 20th of each month), was treated as lending the above KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant reimburses the Plaintiff before the month, and the Defendant issued the certificate of pecuniary tea containing the above contents (Evidence 1) and the certificate of promissory notes (Evidence 2) with KRW 30 million at the face value of KRW 875,00,000 to the Plaintiff on the 20th of each month.

B. Subject to each monthly interest rate of 4%, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 4.8 million on August 22, 201; (b) KRW 3 million on October 31 of the same year; (b) KRW 3 million on November 28, 201; (c) KRW 300,000 on March 30, 2012; and (d)4 of the same year;

8. Five hundred thousand won, and the same year.

7. 20 million won and 21.2.9 million won for each additional loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The content of the Plaintiff’s claim is not a registered credit service provider but a registered loan provider, and the Plaintiff is seeking the unpaid principal and damages for delay after making legal appropriation with the maximum interest rate of 30% per annum under the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Oct. 26, 201; Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 201); and the Presidential Decree, which applied at the time of the said loan (amended by Act No. 10925, Oct. 26, 20

B. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the order of appropriation of debt according to the interest rate set forth in the Interest Limitation Act, or that the Defendant did not designate the Defendant, and that the Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff on 64 occasions from November 5, 201 to July 31, 2014. Therefore, each of the above payments is calculated as follows if the Defendant appropriated the payment to the Plaintiff at 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate set forth in the former Interest Limitation Act, pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Act.

In other words, as of July 31, 2014, the defendant is the plaintiff.