1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant's KRW 500,000 and its relation to the plaintiff from April 25, 2007 to June 29, 2007.

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with the defendant on April 25, 2006 that the amount of 50,000 won is fixed and lent at the rate of 5% per annum on May 2, 2006 and the rate of 5% per annum on May 2, 2006 (66% per annum on delay damages) and the fact that the law firm Cheong Pung certificate was certified as No. 668 in 2006. According to the above facts, the defendant shall pay 50,000 won per annum from April 25, 2006 to June 29, 2007 to 30% per annum on interest rate of 30% per annum from the day following the day of June 24, 2011 to the day of repayment (amended by Act No. 12273, Jan. 14, 2014).

[See Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014); Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 30, 2007) (see, e.g., Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act); Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2011, Jul. 25, 2011); Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 30, 2007). Currently, the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2550, Jul. 15, 2014); and thus, this case does not apply to each case (see, e.g., Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act) and Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Interest Limitation Act).

If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and cancelling it.