The part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff against the defendant C, which is KRW 300,000,00,000, shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's defendant B.

1. Claim for money against the Defendants

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from 2009 to February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed money from Defendant B to the Defendants, and paid interest and principal.

Since an agreement on interest exceeding 30% per annum of the maximum interest rate on lending and borrowing of money prescribed by the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) is null and void, the amount equivalent to KRW 2,299,219,837 paid in excess of the former Interest Limitation Act, out of the amount repaid by the Plaintiff, shall be returned as unjust gains.

In the first place, the defendants have an internal obligation to return to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won out of the above money to the plaintiff jointly and severally, since they have lent money to the plaintiff in the partnership relationship.

Preliminary, according to the transaction details arranged by Defendant B, Defendant B was paid in excess of KRW 891,476,355, and Defendant C was paid in excess of KRW 1,359,720,00 from each Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to return KRW 500,000,000, which is a part of the amount, to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff paid interest exceeding the law on the borrowing of money from the Defendant and the restriction on principal and interest, solely based on the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, as a whole, on the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 12 (including each number) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 12 (including each number):

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the primary and conjunctive claims of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's monetary claim based on this premise are without merit.

1) The investment agreement submitted by Defendant B (No. 10 No. A) is written as D Co., Ltd. which is not a party to the agreement, and on May 17, 2010, the agreement (No. 10 No. 10 No. 10) was also written by the said company to arrange the details of the existing investment agreement and the security agreement.

2) According to the data on the deposit and withdrawal submitted by the Plaintiff, the account name used for each of the instant transactions is opened.