The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The reason why our court's explanation on this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 420 of the

(A) In the case of a claim for return of unjust enrichment for which an agreement on the interest accrued from a loan, even if the act of lending money by a unregistered credit service provider was conducted as a commercial activity, is null and void in violation of the Interest Limitation Act, and thus, there is no reasonable ground to deem that there is a need to promptly resolve the amount equivalent to the interest already paid pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act. Therefore, Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the period of extinctive prescription is 10 years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. It is reasonable to deem that Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the sales price already paid on the ground that the commercial transaction becomes null and void. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are fully borne by the defendant who is the losing party and is so decided as per Disposition.