beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. When there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or when considering the whole purport of the arguments as to the statements in the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-5, the defendant extended money from February 2006 to the plaintiff without any separate interest payment agreement upon the plaintiff's request, and the plaintiff and the defendant made an agreement to receive 7% of the amount paid from the plaintiff around October 2006 to receive 7% of the amount paid from the plaintiff, and then the plaintiff paid money to the plaintiff from September 2013 to September 2013.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion agreed to pay 7% interest per month from July 2007 to September 30, 2013, and received a total of KRW 941,30,000 from the Defendant from around July 30, 2013. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,537,300,000 per annum to the Defendant, which is the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.
Since the payment of interest exceeding the limited interest rate is null and void, the excessive portion is appropriated for the repayment of the leased principal, and the remaining balance is returned as unjust enrichment by the defendant, and the above amount paid by the plaintiff remains 382,181,065 if it is appropriated to the loan principal and interest of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant should pay 200 million won and damages for delay as part of the above unjust enrichment amounting to 382,181,065 won.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not lend money to the plaintiff, but made an investment in the C's business that imports timber from the end of October 2006 and made an investment in the C's business that would make the foundation of the sub-act, thereby making profits of 7% per month through the plaintiff. Since the money received from the plaintiff is not an interest but an investment profit, the unjust enrichment is not established since there is no room for applying the Interest Limitation Act.