1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,255,342 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 16, 2012 to April 1, 2017.

The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,00,000 from the Defendant on June 4, 2012, and KRW 59,000 on June 25, 2012; KRW 90,000 on July 5, 2012; KRW 900,000 on August 5, 2012; KRW 900,000 on August 5, 2012; KRW 90,000 on September 5, 2012; KRW 90,000 on October 5, 2012; KRW 150,000,000 on November 15, 2012; or KRW 50,000 on June 25, 2012; the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on the basis of the purport that the Plaintiff’s payment in excess of the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 3615, Jun. 16, 2012; the Plaintiff’s payment in excess of the above maximum interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree No.

The defendant was promised to compensate for the amount equivalent to 50,000,000 won with a premium to the defendant who lent the money to the defendant in the course of a housing sale business. Since the plaintiff's claim for return is asserted to the effect that it goes against the good faith principle, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff made the promise as alleged by the defendant, and that the plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.Although there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the defendant, Article 4 (1) of the Interest Limitation Act provides that the creditor received in relation to the lending and borrowing of money regardless of the name, such agreement shall be deemed as interest, if the plaintiff paid 50,000 won to the defendant in relation to the lending and borrowing of money to the defendant, it shall be deemed that the interest should be applied additionally to this case.

With respect to the scope of unjust enrichment that the Defendant must return to the Plaintiff.