The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is to correct "32 million won" which is the fourth 10th 10th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. The Defendant asserts that, as the grounds for appeal by this court, the Plaintiff may not seek the return of interest paid to the Defendant in excess of the restriction on the Interest Limitation Act, since the Plaintiff prepared a statement of settlement with the Defendant on January 18, 2012 (Evidence No. 7) and agreed to settle all transactions under the loan agreement that was made by the said date in accordance with the above statement of settlement.

Although the contents stated in Eul evidence 7 (the statement of settlement as of January 18, 2012) appear to be the details of money and real estate transactions between the plaintiff, the defendant, and C, it is insufficient to recognize them as a disposal document that comprehensively adjusts transactions between the above three parties by January 18, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Furthermore, even if such contents constitute a document stating the settlement agreement between the parties, if the contents violate the restriction of the Interest Limitation Act, it cannot be recognized as being the judicial effect (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998). Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim in part, and accepted the defendant's set-off defense, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's claim in whole, is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.