1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,340,00 and KRW 25,198,761 among them.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Plaintiff and Defendant B borrowed money as follows, and Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation on April 2, 2013.

Although Defendant B asserted that the agreement did not enter into an interest agreement with the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, in light of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 and 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.

Details offered by the Plaintiff to Defendant B 1: 0.19,00,00 on April 20, 2012 / 6,00,000 on April 3, 2013 / 7, 2013; 6,00,000 on April 25, 2013/6,00 on April 27, 2013/6,000 on aggregate 44,250,00.30,000 on May 21, 2012; 1.30,00 on August 3, 20, 200, 200 on each of the following grounds:

2. Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014); and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014) provides that the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing money shall be 30% per annum.

In addition, Article 479(1) of the Civil Act provides that where an obligor pays expenses and interest of one or more obligations, if a person performing the obligation has effected performance which has failed to extinguish the entire obligation, such performance shall be appropriated in the order of the expenses, interest and principal. Article 479(2) and Article 477(3) of the Civil Act provides that such performance shall be appropriated.