1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court's explanation of this case is based on the evidence additionally submitted by the court of first instance and rejected each entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including each number), which lacks to reverse the facts of recognition of the judgment of the court of first instance. The part No. 7, No. 10, and No. 8, No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the entry of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the second part as set forth below No. 2. 7.

2. Cut part:

According to Article 2(1), (3), (4), and Article 3 of the Interest Limitation Act, and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017), the maximum interest rate on loans of money concluded after July 15, 2014 is 25% per annum, and the above maximum interest rate is null and void. If the obligor voluntarily pays interest exceeding the above maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess shall be appropriated to the principal. If the obligor deducts the advance payment from the advance payment of the interest exceeds the amount calculated based on the above maximum interest rate, the excess amount shall be deemed as appropriated to the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5198, Oct. 11, 2012). Meanwhile, the provision of Article 476 of the Civil Act concerning satisfaction of payment between the obligor and the obligor becomes effective in the order of satisfaction of payment under Article 476 of the Civil Act.