1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as annual 5% from October 22, 2015 to November 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) on May 31, 201, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant at interest rate of KRW 1,00,000 per annum (40% per annum) without fixing the due date, and the Defendant received interest of KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant on July 1, 2011, and the Defendant is also obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 28,793,863 calculated by deducting the interest exceeding the amount in accordance with the Interest Limitation Act from the principal and the delay damages thereon. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) around May 30, 201, the Defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 1,00,00 from the Plaintiff, and additionally remitted the amount of KRW 29,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s agent’s expenses; and (b) the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to purchase and transfer the amount of KRW 1,000,00.

B. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant around May 31, 201, as there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 and the damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint stating the claim for payment.

However, with respect to interest agreements asserted by the Plaintiff, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the Plaintiff, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the number of pages), and the testimony of the witness C and D, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have been in close-friendly relationship, such as putting a paper golf together or making a travel together, ② the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have been given and taken frequently in money transactions other than the above loans, ② there was no interest agreement in other monetary transactions, ③ the Defendant operating the automobile agency’s 40% per annum.