Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff stated that “interest: 15 million won shall be deducted at the rate of five months from the date of repayment; 60% per annum from the date of loan; and that “interest shall be deducted at the rate of 1.5 million won per annum.” However, the Plaintiff’s conversion to the interest rate of 60% per annum;

The interest payment date was set and lent on the 20th day of each month (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant guaranteed C’s above loan obligations, and the loan certificate stating the above contents (hereinafter “the first loan certificate”) was drawn up with a certificate.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to C, and paid KRW 1,275,00 after deducting KRW 2,250,000 under the name of a third-month interest.

C. After that, C and the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, KRW 7550,000 on September 20, 2016, KRW 7550,000 on October 25, 2016, KRW 750,000 on November 28, 2016, KRW 150,000 on January 25, 2017, KRW 750,00 on June 5, 2017, and KRW 500,000 on March 30, 2018.

On October 29, 2018, the Plaintiff determined that “15 million won, interest rate of 24% (300,000 won as of the end of each month), and March 31, 2019” between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the date of preparation was stated retroactively as of June 20, 2016, and the debtor was re-written with the loan certificate with the Defendant as the Defendant (hereinafter “second loan certificate”).

E. Thereafter, the Defendant additionally repaid to the Plaintiff the total of KRW 1.8 million on October 29, 2018, KRW 300,000 on November 29, 2018, KRW 300,000 on December 31, 2018, KRW 300,000 on January 31, 2019, KRW 300,000 on February 28, 2019, and KRW 1.8 million on March 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1 (the defendant's claim that the above deed was made by the plaintiff's coercion, but there is no evidence to admit it), Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of this case was made is the principal and interest of the portion exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.