1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by the plaintiff in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 11, and 12.

On June 25, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and borrowed KRW 400,000,000 from the Defendant.

At the time, the Plaintiff, as a security for the above loan obligation, set up a mortgage on the commercial building No. 301 in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

At the time of the instant loan contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to apply the expiration date of the loan term on June 25, 201, and the interest rate as the floating interest rate, applying the “standard interest rate - 0.2%” as the floating interest rate.

Since then, the defendant calculated as a variable interest rate in proportion to the standard interest rate, and received interest from the plaintiff.

On June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the term of the instant loan agreement, and the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant commercial building with the Jung-gu District Court C.

In the above auction procedure, D rendered a decision of permission to sell the commercial building of this case at KRW 415,378,000, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 9, 2013.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the claim for return of unjust enrichment: (a) the Defendant received the interest of the instant loan by changing the interest rate in proportion to the standard interest rate set by the Bank of Korea; (b) the standard interest rate is applied as it was even when the CD interest rate sharply lowered due to the global financial crisis from November 2008; and (c) the Defendant’s failure to adjust the interest rate equivalent to the CD interest rate is null and void as it used a superior transaction position without reflecting the market situation, and thus, the Defendant received the instant loan contract by adjusting the rate from the standard interest rate to the lower percentage of the CD interest rate.