1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the defendant’s new argument in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance court as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is " January 9, 2006" in Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as " January 19, 2006."

Part 15 of the decision of the first instance court is referred to as the "right to indemnity after death".

Forms 7 through 14 of the decision of the first instance court are as follows.

The former Act on the Restriction of Interest (Act No. 971) enacted on January 15, 1962 provides that "The former Act on the Restriction of Interest (Act No. 971) was repealed on January 13, 198 by the repealed Act (Act No. 5507) and was newly enacted on March 29, 2007 and enforced on June 30, 2007, and the former Interest Limitation Act (Act No. 8322) enacted on June 30, 207 were 30% per annum. Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Act provides that "The interest rate shall be calculated from the enforcement date of this Act with respect to contractual interest rates established prior to the enforcement of this Act pursuant to this Act, from January 14, 2014 to June 30, Article 205 of the former Interest Limitation Act (Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014; 2016.

In addition, the portion exceeding 30% of the statutory interest rate is null and void, and the amount equivalent to the interest paid voluntarily by the plaintiff exceeding the maximum interest rate is appropriated for the original.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s agreed interest rate on the borrowed money on July 21, 2008 is 24% per annum.