1. Plaintiff A, Defendant C’s KRW 85,030,00, and its annual rate is 5% from January 28, 2016 to June 21, 2017.

1. Determination on Plaintiff A’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant C

A. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

1) Plaintiff A borrowed money from Defendant C as indicated in the “passbook” column of the calculation sheet for the return of unjust enrichment in attached Form No. 7. (2) Plaintiff A paid money to Defendant C, as indicated in the payment statement in attached Form No. 3.

3. The maximum interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act from the time when Plaintiff A and Defendant C engaged in monetary transactions to July 14, 2014 was 30% per annum, and the maximum interest rate from the next day is 25% per annum.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Plaintiff A’s interest paid to Defendant C exceeds the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, and the amount exceeding the restriction is appropriated for the repayment of principal. However, Defendant C would have received the principal in excess of the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, and Defendant C would have to return it as unjust enrichment.

(c)where the obligor has repaid money that is insufficient to meet all principal and interest, the interest and principal shall be appropriated in the order of the principal;

In addition, the part exceeding the Interest Limitation Act is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order.

Therefore, the obligee should appropriate the principal to the interest rate received in excess of the maximum interest rate stipulated by the Interest Limitation Act, and if there is any money received from the obligor, the obligee should return it to the obligee’s unjust enrichment.

In accordance with the above legal principle, if the plaintiff Gap's repayment of the money that he repaid to the defendant Eul is paid to the defendant Eul, the calculation of unjust enrichment is as shown in the separate sheet of claim for return of unjust enrichment. The amount that the plaintiff Gap paid to the defendant Eul is KRW 85,0

Therefore, Defendant C’s existence and scope of Defendant C’s obligation to pay from January 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff A, as well as KRW 85,030,00,00, and the final payment to Defendant C.