1. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of Dongju District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2011, if the Plaintiff and the Defendant invested KRW 30 million in the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract that guarantees the principal by paying KRW 1 million (from July to September each year) or KRW 1.5 million (from October each year to June next year) monthly revenue to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On December 11, 2013, in order to secure the payment of the said money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 36 million as of December 11, 2013, which was received on December 28327, 2013, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, from the Jeonju District Court’s Seoul District Court Branch.

C. On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million to the Defendant, and from August 1, 2011 to April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid each of the “date and amount of payment” stated in the attached Table’s statement of appropriation for performance to the Defendant, and paid KRW 1.5 million on May 8, 2015.

(hereinafter) The Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the entire monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant monetary transaction”); (b) / [based on recognition] the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 11, and the purport of the entire

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a monetary loan for consumption, and the use of certain expressions, such as “investment money” and “profit” in the course of the transaction, but the actual nature of the said money ought to be deemed as a loan or interest.

Therefore, Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act apply to the instant monetary transaction. Of the interest paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the part exceeding the highest interest rate (the highest interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act is 30% per annum until July 14, 2014, and is 25% per annum from July 15, 2014) of the interest paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is null and void in violation of the said provision.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s money in this case to the Defendant, such as the statement of performance appropriation.