The contract is based on monetary consumption lending and lending contract as stated in the separate loan list against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Party’s argument

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 171,421,50 from the Defendant from November 5, 2016 to April 30, 2018, and subsequently repaid KRW 126,91,987 in excess of the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, by adding up all the interest to May 12, 2020.

Therefore, there is no contractual obligation under the Plaintiff’s monetary consumption lending contract against the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to return the KRW 126,91,987 that the Defendant received as excessive to the Plaintiff and the delayed damages to the Plaintiff as unjust gains.

B. From October 17, 2016 to April 30, 2018, the Defendant lent KRW 310,277,510 to the Plaintiff by lending cash or allowing the Plaintiff to use the credit card in the name of the Defendant.

The defendant did not pay the plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 86,635,277 and interest KRW 16,939,320, among the above loans.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the delayed damages for the total sum of KRW 103,574,597 and the principal amount of KRW 86,635,27.

2. Determination

A. The part of the principal claim and the part of the counterclaim claim are the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the total principal of KRW 171,421,500 from the Defendant at an interest rate higher than that under the Interest Limitation Act, as stated in the items of the loan principal (hereinafter “loan claim of this case”) in the separate loan list.

The defendant added 138,856,010 won in total to the plaintiff as stated in the items of loan non-recognized principal (hereinafter referred to as "loan") in the attached list of the loan.

The argument is asserted.

As shown in the Defendant’s argument, each entry of Eul 1, 3, and 5 is limited to the message unilaterally written or urged by the Defendant to make a reimbursement. However, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant “not later than the day” upon receiving the text message requesting two credit cards from the Defendant.

Even if so, the plaintiff uses the defendant's card and pays the price.