1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the designated party) of the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff and the appointed party.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2008, the Defendant, on September 24, 2008, lent to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million with the maturity date on September 24, 2009, and the interest rate on KRW 1 million per month (hereinafter “loan”).

B. From October 27, 2008 to February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff repaid a total of KRW 9.55 million to the Defendant.

C. Around March 23, 2010, the Defendant extended additional money to the Plaintiff.

On March 23, 2010, the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed as an addressee by the Plaintiff and the designated parties, the issuer, the addressee, the Defendant, the payment date, and the amount of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On March 23, 2010, the Defendant, as an agent of the Plaintiff and the designated parties, commissioned the preparation of the notarial deed as an addressee, and on the same day, the notary public is the “notarial deed of promissory note No. 661, 2010,” respectively.

E) The Plaintiff was drafted. From May 25, 2010 to April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 3,537,00 to the Defendant. (f) The Plaintiff did not pay taxes, etc. imposed on the Defendant’s wife in relation to the shopping mall in the name of the Defendant’s wife while operating the online shopping mall (G) in the name of the Defendant’s wife. The Defendant paid KRW 7,550,950 to the unpaid amount of taxes on February 2, 2015 and September 6, 2017. As of October 2, 2017, the amount of taxes of KRW 3,379,050 is delinquent. [In the absence of dispute over recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 9, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 4-1 to 7, No. 5, 7, and 8 of the evidence No. 1, the purport of each court’s order to provide financial transaction information to H as a whole.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. On September 24, 2008, the Defendant lent the loan amounting to KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2009 with the maturity of KRW 1,000,000 per annum (60% per annum) on September 24, 2009. The fact that the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant a total of KRW 9.55 million from October 27, 2008 to February 26, 201 is as follows.

The violation of the Interest Limitation Act, which is a mandatory provision, is ex officio.