1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that between August 2008 and March 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendants as stated in the “actual loan” column in the separate sheet as stated in the separate sheet. The Defendants paid the same amount as stated in the same list.

In the process, the Defendants received interest exceeding 5% per annum or 30% per annum, which is a limitation under the Interest Limitation Act, from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiff each money stated in the purport of the claim, which is the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess of 5% per annum or 30% per annum.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014), the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing money is 30% per annum, and the portion exceeding the maximum interest rate under a contract is null and void. If the debtor voluntarily paid the interest exceeding the maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated for

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da81203 Decided February 14, 2013). B.

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's assertion about the portion of interest payment from 5% excess interest rate to 30% interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.

Even if the obligor paid at will interest exceeding 5%, which is a civil statutory interest rate, to the obligee, insofar as the excess does not exceed the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, it does not necessarily become null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone does not recognize the Defendants’ liability for return of unjust enrichment on the excess portion.

C. Next, considering the following circumstances, as to the assertion of the portion of interest payment exceeding 30%, which is subject to the restriction of the Interest Limitation Act, the overall purport of the arguments in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul No. 1 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) are considered as follows.