1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the amount ordered under the following Paragraph 2 shall be revoked.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to this court was presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified except for the following partial dismissal.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is based on the following facts: (a) the fourth 4-10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used; and (b) the Defendants’ new assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment, which is identical to that of the following Paragraph 2; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance

A person shall be appointed.

A. According to Article 2(1), (3), and (4) of the former Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014); and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014); the maximum interest rate under a contract for monetary lending and lending is 30% per annum; the portion exceeding the maximum interest rate under a contract is null and void; and the amount equivalent to the interest paid should be appropriated for the repayment of the original.

In full view of the above facts and relevant provisions, since the Plaintiff’s interest rate of the amount loaned from October 31, 201 to May 11, 201, 8,007,816 won (i) 24,700,000 x [29 days/36 days (i.e., 29 days/36 days/6 June 15, 201)] x 0.30.34,636,31 (c) x 20.5 days/600 x 20.5 days/ 205 x 36.6 days/ 205 / 205 / 205 / 96.36 days/6, 205 / 205 / 9.6 days/ 205 / 205 / 9.36 days/6.5 / 205 / 205 / 205)