1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts shall exceed the amount ordering payment:

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together;

A. From February 2, 2008 to November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 131,400,000 to the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table, and the Defendant repaid KRW 257,013,00 to the Plaintiff from September 12, 2008 to March 30, 2013 as shown in the attached Table.

B. On March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the remaining loans at KRW 35,000,000, and the Defendant agreed to repay the remaining loans to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 3-14, 16-3-16, Eul evidence 5-10, 12, 17, 20, 21-21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 35,000,000 and delay damages pursuant to the instant agreement.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant agreement is null and void by an agreement on the payment of interest exceeding the maximum interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act, and thus, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. (2) The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 283,52,00 as interest during the period from January 23, 2008 to November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 247,103,230, which exceeds the interest equivalent to 30% per annum, which is the maximum interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act, to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the principal lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 35,000,000 and delay damages pursuant to the agreement of this case, barring any special circumstance.

However, a contractual interest in excess of the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act is null and void, and even if a quasi-Loan Agreement or a novation Agreement is concluded with respect to the interest in excess of such limit, such excess shall not take effect (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998). The former Interest Limitation Act applicable to this case shall take effect on January 14, 2014.